Division   35500 
Section 


THE  HIGHER  CRITIC'S  BIBLE 


OR 


GOD'S  BIBLE? 


WILLIAM  HENRVBURNS 

M.  A.,  D.  D.    (WESLEYAN,  MIDDLETOWN) 


INTRODUCTION 

BY 

Bishop  C.  C.  McCabe,  D.  D.,  LL.  D. 

CHANCELLOR    AMERICAN    UNIVERSITY 
WASHINGTON,    D.    C. 


CINCINNATI:    JENNINGS    AND    GRAHAM 
NEW    YORK:    EATON    AND    MAINS 


COPTKIGHT,  1904,  BY 

Jknnings  and  Graham 


TO 

the  memory  op  my  mother, 

a  woman  who  loved  and  believed 

God's  Word  ; 
my  religious  instructor  in  youth  ; 
an  inspiration  during  all  my  life  ; 
whose  gift  of  a  bible   in  boyhood 
i  still  retain  as  a  sacred  treasure, 

THIS  BOOK 

IS    DEDICATED    IN 

GEATEFUL  AFFECTION 


Preface 

This  little  book  is  not  intended  for  tech- 
nical scholars,  but  for  busy  pastors  and  in- 
quiring laymen.  It  aims  to  give  in  a  direct 
and  familiar  way  a  fair  representation  of 
what  is  popularly  known  as  ^^  Higher  Crit- 
icism;''  what  it  stands  for  among  its  adher- 
ents in  our  orthodox  Churches ;  what  it  must 
logically  lead  to;  and  to  help  the  reader  to 
arrive  at  an  independent  judgment  respect- 
ing its  conclusions  and  respecting  the  Bible 
as  a  Divine  Eevelation. 

The  author  agrees  with  Bishop  C.  H. 
Fowler  when  he  says,  speaking  of  ^'Higher 
Criticism:''  ^^It  must  be  treated  like  old  Ger- 
man rationalism— as  an  enemy. '  '*  While  the 
book  assumes  this  attitude  toward  the  sys- 
tem, it  seeks  to  avoid  all  acrimonious  person- 

*  Terry,  Moses  and  the  Prophet?,  p.  6. 


Preface 

alities,  to  be  honest  in  its  representations,  and 
to  be  unbiased  in  its  judgment. 

It  bas  little  consideration  for  unsupported 
human  opinions,  for  theories  that  do  not  ac- 
count for  the  facts  in  the  case,  or  for  the 
many  conceits  of  the  ^^ modern  mind;"  but  at- 
taches much  importance  to  established  facts, 
to  sound  reasoning,  and  especially  to  the  au- 
thority of  Jesus  Christ. 

The  general  plan  of  the  book  makes  it 
necessary  to  refer  frequently  to  different 
writers.  In  some  cases  the  volume  and  page 
are  given,  but  respecting  most  of  these  this 
is  not  supposed  necessary  or  desirable,  as 
the  work  is  intended  for  popular  use. 

The  earnest  prayer  of  the  author  is  that, 
as  his  book  goes  forth.  He  whose  truth  he 
seeks  to  honor  and  uphold  may  bless  it  and 
the  Unknown  Eeader. 

Chicago,  March,  1904. 


Books 


LIST  OF  SOME  OF  THE  BOOKS 
CHIEFLY  CONSULTED. 

Driver,  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. 
Briggs,  The  Study  of  Holy  Scripture. 
Peters,  The  Old  Testament  and  the  New  Scholarship. 
Gardner,  A  Historic  View  of  the  New  Testament, 
Atkinson,  Christian  Conference  Essays. 
Gladden,  How  Much  is  Left  of  the  Old  Doctrines? 
RisHELL,  The  Higher  Criticism. 
Duffy,  The  Theology  and  Ethics  of  the  Hebrews. 
Denney,  Studies  in  Theology. 
NicoLL,  The  Church's  One  Foundation. 
Abbott,  The  Theology  of  an  Evolutionist. 
Iverach,  Evolution  and  Christianity. 
Dawson,  Modern  Science  in  Bible  Lands. 
Margoliouth,  Lines  of  Defense  of  the  Biblical  Revelation. 
Green,  The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch. 
HoMMEL,  The  Ancient  Hebrew  Tradition. 
Anderson,  Daniel  in  the  Critic's  Den. 
Smith,  The  Integrity  of  Scripture. 
Jacobus,  A  Problem  in  New  Testament  Criticism. 
Sayce,  Fresh  Light  from  the  Ancient  Monuments. 
Sayce,  Monument  Facts  and  Higher  Critical  Fancies. 
Hervey,  The  Books  of  Chronicles. 

7 


Contents 

Page 

Iktroductiox  by  Bishop  Charles  C. 

McOabe,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,       -        -       11 

Chapter 

I.    Prologue.     Higher  Critics  an"d  the 

Modern  View,         _        _        -  15 

II.   Deiktregatiok  ai^d  Eeintegratioi^,      41 
III.    Reducing  the   Supernatural  to  a 

Minimum, 65 

lY.    Destroying  the  Foundations,     -  99 

V.    The  Higher  Critic's  Bible;  or.  The 

Residuum, 131 

VI.   A   Defective    Method;    Unassured 

Results, 179 

VII.    The   New   Scholarship  and   the 

Pretentious  Critics,      -        -         205 
VIII.    Truer  Scholarship  and  Better 

Critics, 223 

IX.    GoD^s  Bible  the  People's  Bible,  275 

X.   Epilogue.    Earnestly  Contend  for 

THE  Faith,  -        -        .        .    308 

XL    General  Index,     -        -        -        -        317 
9 


O  holy,  holy  Book  of  God  I 
There  are  no  words  like  thine  ; 

The  tones  that  angels  bow  to  hear 
Breathe  through  these  lines  divine  ; 

And  come,  with  love's  own  melody, 
From  the  King's  heart  to  mine." 


Introduction 

Intkoductions  should  be  brief,  and  mine 
shall  be.  The  Bible  is  not  in  peril  from  de- 
structive higher  critics.  It  never  was  in 
peril;  it  never  will  be.  '^The  foundation  of 
God  standeth  sure. ' '  All  flesh  is  as  grass  and 
all  the  glory  of  man  as  the  flower  of  grass. 
The  grass  withereth,  and  the  flower  thereof 
falleth  away;  but  the  Word  of  the  Lord  en- 
dureth  forever.     (1  Peter  i,  24,  25.) 

Individual  souls  are  in  peril.  Troubled 
truth  seekers  are  in  danger  of  being  misled. 
I  am  glad  to  hear  the  voice  of  Dr.  Burns  ring- 
ing out  the  warning  so  clearly.  I  commend 
his  book.  He  has  stated  their  positions,  ex- 
posed their  sophistries,  and  answered  their 
arguments.  He  is  not  alone.  Men  are  rising 
up  through  all  the  Churches  to  become  the 
champions  of  the  Word  of  God. 
11 


Introduction 

Many  of  the  findings  of  Higher  Criticism 
are  so  absurd  that  it  must  be  they  will  soon 
come  to  naught.  Think  of  Abraham,  the 
Father  of  the  Faithful,  the  Friend  of  God, 
being  spoken  of  by  a  theological  professor 
as  a  mythical  personage ! 

Such  a  statement  is  startling  to  a  true  be- 
liever in  our  Holy  Christianity.  It  gives, 
however,  an  opportunity  to  try  upon  it  that 
powerful  weapon  of  logic  known  as  ^^reductio 
ad  absurdum. ' '  Apply  the  mythical  theory  to 
the  New  Testament  Scriptures.  Make  Jesus 
say,  ''Your  Father  the  Myth  rejoiced  to  see 
my  day;  He  saw  it  and  was  glad.''  ''God  is 
able  of  these  stones  to  raise  up  children  unto 
the  myth.''  Or  make  Paul  say:  "The  myth 
went  out  not  knowing  whither  he  went.  The 
myth  staggered  not  at  the  promises  of  God 
through  unbelief." 

How  absurd  it  all  is ! 

If  such  theories  should  get  hold  of  the 
rank  and  file  of  the  Church  the  ruin  would  be 
great.  Do  these  men  wish  to  destroy  the 
12 


Introduction 

Bible?  to  break  its  bold  upon  tbe  bearts  and 
consciences  of  men?  Tben  let  tbem  be  look- 
ing round  for  some  otber  sacred  book  to  take 
its  place ;  some  book  wbose  etbical  teacbings 
will  lift  nations  into  power  and  grandeur,  for 
no  nation  ever  became  great  and  enduring 
witbout  tbe  belp  of  tbe  Holy  Bible. 

Tbere  are  some  doctrines  wbicb  are  ab- 
solutely necessary  to  tbe  spiritual  life  of  tbe 
Cburcb.  Among  tbese  are:  Tbe  Inspiration 
of  tbe  Holy  Scripture,  tbe  Divinity  of  Cbrist, 
and  tbe  Vicarious  Atonement  of  tbe  Son  of 
God. 

Witbout  faitb  in  tbese  tbe  glory  will  de- 
part from  us,  and  we  sball  be  utterly  defeated 
in  our  efforts  to  bring  tbe  world  to  Cbrist. 

**  Within  the  awful  volume  lies 
The  mystery  of  mysteries. 
O  happiest  they  of  human  race, 
To  whom  our  God  has  given  the  grace 
To  read,  to  think,  to  watch,  to  pray, 
To  lift  the  latch  and  force  the  way. 
But  better  had  he  ne'er  been  born 
Who  reads  to  doubt  or  reads  to  scorn." 

C.  0.  McCABE. 
13 


Prologue 


Hammer  away,  ye  hostile  bands ; 

Your  hammers  break,  God's  anvil  stands. 


Prologue 

Theke  is  an  enlightened  spiritual  scholar- 
ship which  comes  to  the  Bible  with  bowed 
head,  unshod  feet,  a  trustful  heart,  a  teach- 
able mind,  and  an  earnest  desire  to  know 
what  the  Book  is  and  what  it  contains.  Such 
a  scholarship  is  not  seeking  difficulties,  but 
their  removal.  Its  object  is  to  confirm,  and 
not  to  unsettle  faith.  It  gladly  welcomes  light 
from  all  sources.  It  does  not  depend  wholly 
upon  taste,  instinct,  reason,  science,  or  any 
form  of  human  learning,  but  especially  seeks 
the  revealings  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  whose  func- 
tion it  is  to  lead  into  all  truth. 

The  Christian  Church  has  been  singularly 
blest  during  the  various  stages  of  its  history 
with  scholarship  of  this  character.  Many  of 
2  17 


Higher  Critics  and 

its  closest  students  and  most  profound  minds 
have  been  busy,  especially  during  the  later 
centuries,  in  examining  the  sacred  writings, 
inquiring  into  the  nature  of  the  different 
documents— their  authorship,  dates,  and  lit- 
erary and  historical  elements,  as  well  as  their 
doctrinal  and  ethical  teachings,  to  the  great 
advantage  of  true  religion. 

Up  to  this  day  these  scholars  have  been 
able,  with  unshrinking  confidence  and  marked 
ability,  to  repel  the  attacks  of  all  the  destruc- 
tive critics  who  have  sought  to  disprove 
either  the  genuineness,  authenticity,  or  cred- 
ibility of  the  Scriptures. 

Within  the  last  twenty-five  years,  how- 
ever, there  has  arisen  in  all  our  evangelical 
denominations  a  class  of  scholars  who,  while 
claiming  to  be  one  with  the  Churches  to  which 
they  belong  as  to  fundamental  doctrines,  have 
been  doing  a  large  part  of  the  destructive 
work  which  had  hitherto  been  confined  to  the 
confessed  enemies  of  evangelical  Christian- 
ity. This  has  led  the  Open  Court,  a  natural- 
18 


the  Modern  View 

istic  publication,  to  say :  ^  ^  Infidels  have  only- 
utilized  for  their  own  purposes  the  results  of 
the  higher  criticism  which  they  have  usually 
obtained  from  second,  or  even  third-hand 
sources.  It  is  the  believer  that  did  the  work. ' ' 
These  so-called  believers  have  adopted,  with 
modifications,  the  form  of  Biblical  criticism 
popularly  known  as  higher  criticism,  which 
has  had  a  long  and  varied  history.  Though 
the  system  had  many  pioneers,  such  as  Carl- 
stadt,  Hobbes,  Spinoza,  Simon,  Le  Clerc,  and 
Astruc,  it  is  mainly  based  on  Eichhorn's 
work,  which  was  first  published  in  1780.  He 
first  gave  it  the  name  higher  criticism,  and  is 
considered  by  such  men  as  Driver  and  Briggs 
as  the  father  of  the  system.  Baur,the  founder 
of  the  celebrated  Tiibingen  school,  is  some- 
times called  the  father  of  its  more  modern 
form.  In  its  earlier  stages  it  was  largely 
literary  in  its  nature,  and  dealt  especially 
with  the  Pentateuch.  During  later  years  it 
has  been  applied  to  all  portions  of  the  Sacred 
Scriptures,  and  has  become  more  historical 
19 


Higher  Critics  and 

than  literary.  It  will  not  he  necessary  for 
lis  to  trace  its  history  from  Astruc  or  Eich- 
horn  down,  as  it  is  largely  the  chasing  of 
shadows  and  the  weaving  of  visionary  the- 
ories which  have  heen  long  ago  exploded.  So 
we  *^  gladly  avoid  entering  a  realm  full  of 
mist  and  pitfalls  of  the  wreck  of  decayed  sys- 
tems and  the  ghosts  of  the  mighty  dead.'' 

It  will  be  sufficient  to  state  that  the  higher 
criticism  of  to-day  is  mainly  the  system 
shaped  and  enlarged  by  Eichhorn,  together 
with  Hegel's  historical  development  theory, 
which  was  expanded  by  Banr,  Vatke,  and 
Graf;  and  by  Kuenen,  professor  in  Leyden 
University,  who  boldly  cut  loose  from  many 
unworkable  critical  theories  and  advocated 
^^the  order  of  legislation  proposed  by  Graf." 

About  twenty-five  years  ago  Professor 
Julius  Wellhausen,  of  Gottingen  University, 
a  rationalist,  following  the  lead  of  Kuenen, 
who  was  an  atheist,  adapted  the  development 
theory  to  the  entire  Old  Testament,  and  pre- 
sented the  matter  so  ably  and  plausibly,  that 
20 


the  Modern  View 

almost  immediately  it  became  popular  in  Ger- 
many and  Holland.  It  still  holds  sway  in 
those  countries,  and  is  accepted  by  almost  all 
agnostic  and  rationalistic  critics  in  England 
and  this  country,  and  by  a  large  majority  of 
the  men  in  high  and  low  standing  in  our  vari- 
our  orthodox  churches  who  consider  them- 
selves supernaturalistic  higher  critics.  The 
latter  have  so  modified  their  evangelical 
views  as  to  enable  them  to  adopt,  with  a  few 
variations,  this  system  which  was  devised  by 
'^ apostates,^'  as  Sir  Eobt.  Anderson  properly 
calls  them ;  and  which  is  not  only  naturalistic 
in  its  origin,  history,  and  methods,  but  whose 
most  important  results  were  anticipated  or 
suggested  by  some  of  the  most  bitter  enemies 
the  Christian  faith  has  ever  known.  Some 
divide  these  critics  into  three  schools— Ag- 
nostic, Rationalistic,  and  Supernaturalistic. 
There  are  a  few  Eclectic  critics  who  rank 
themselves  as  higher  critics  who  do  not  ac- 
cept the  Wellhausen  development  theory,  and 
who  reach  results  of  their  own. 
21 


Higher  Critics  and 

Some  claim  that  all  investigation  respect- 
ing the  origin  of  the  sacred  documents— their 
dates,  authority,  or  historic  or  literary  char- 
acter—is higher  criticism.  This  is  evidently 
usiag  the  term  in  a  much  broader  sense  than 
its  history,  its  natural  limitations,  or  popular 
use  will  justify.  Driver,  Briggs,  Haupt,  and 
other  leaders  apply  the  name  higher  criticism 
only  to  their  own  system.  All  Biblical  crit- 
icism which  combats  their  principles  and  re- 
sults they  designate  as  ^  *  anti-higher  crit- 
icism," or  ^^traditionalism;"  while  scholars 
such  as  W.  H.  Green,  Sayce,Bissell,  and  Hom- 
mel,  who  have  the  most  boldly  and  success- 
fully opened  fire  on  the  system,  have  used  the 
term  as  its  chief  exponents  have  done. 

Higher  Criticism  has  well-established  and 
generally-recognized  dogmas,  a  priori  as- 
sumptions, theories,  principles,  and  methods, 
as  well  as  its  six  well-known  literary  rules, 
and  unless  one  accepts  the  system  and  works 
it,  or  adopts  its  results,  no  matter  how  crit- 
ically he  may  examine  the  Holy  Writ,  he  is 
22 


the  Modern  View 

no  more,  as  the  phrase  is  commonly  nsed,  a 
higher  critic  than  a  Regular  physician  be- 
cause he  understands  and  practices  medicine 
is  a  Homeopathist,  or  a  Christian  scholar  be- 
cause he  is  a  psychologist  is  a  Christian  Sci- 
entist. It  certainly  requires  a  great  stretch 
of  the  imagination  to  speak  of  Luther,  Cal- 
vin, Wesley,  and  Adam  Clarke  as  higher  crit- 
ics, as  some  do,  when  these  men  knew  nothing 
of  the  process  as  it  now  exists,  never  had  any 
sympathy  with  its  dominating  principles  or 
doubts,  but  held  to  the  Bible  in  the  broadest 
evangelical  sense  as  the  very  Word  of  God, 
which  no  higher  critic  now  does. 

The  critical  examination  of  the  text  of 
Scripture  is  commonly  called  Lower  or  Text- 
ual Criticism.  The  Newer  Criticism  is  really 
the  Higher  Criticism,  and  is  used  by  the 
critics  themselves  as  a  less  offensive  term 
for  the  process  which  they  are  so  drastically 
applying  to  the  New  Testament  at  the  present 
time.  It  is  substantially  the  same  process, 
with  some  necessary  modifications,  to  which 
23 


Higher  Critics  and 

they  have  subjected  the  Old  Testament  in  the 
past  with  such  destructive  results. 

Higher  Criticism  is  only  one  phase  of  the 
broader  term,  modern  Biblical  Criticism, 
which  may  be  applied  to  all  forms  of  critical 
investigation  of  Scriptural  phenomena. 
There  are  many  Biblical  critics  of  the  highest 
scholarship  who,  though  they  use  legitimate 
modern  scientific  methods  in  the  study  of 
Holy  Writ,  repudiate  not  only  the  results  of 
higher  criticism  and  the  term  itself,  but  its 
principal  assumptions,  principles,  and  cri- 
teria. 

A  few  of  these  assumptions,  principles, 
or  criteria  which  are  used,  not  exclusively  by 
the  radical  leaders,  but  also  by  many  of  their 
professedly  conservative  and  reverent  fol- 
lowers, I  will  now  give  in  an  informal  and 
popular  way,  thus : 

1.  The  Bible  is  to  be  treated  and  judged  as  any  other 

form  of  literature. 

2.  The  Bible  is  not  properly  one  book,  but  a  library  of 

separate  and  for  the  most  part  unconnected  books. 

3.  The  Biblical  books  must  not  be  used  to  corroborate 

24 


the  Modern  View- 
each  other.    Even  the  New  Testament  must  not  be 
used  to  confirm  the  Old. 

4.  The  prophets,  evangelists,  and  writers   of    the  Holy 

Scriptures,  and  even  Christ  Himself,  accommodated 
their  teachings  regarding  angels  and  demons,  the 
resurrection,  vicarious  sacrifice,  miracles,  prophecy, 
and  the  character  of  Scripture  itself,  to  the  prevail- 
ing false  views  of  their  times. 

5.  While  Biblical  miracles  are  not  denied,  the  right  to 

judge  the  trustworthiness  of  the  record  and  the 
character  of  the  miracle  in  every  case,  is  reserved. 

6.  The  Bible  is  a  record  of  a  religious  evolution. 

7.  The  Biblical  books,  as  a  record,  are  not  inspired  or 

are  not  so  inspired  as  to  make  them  truly  reliable. 
8    The   Biblical   historical  statements  are  to  be  freely 
rejected,  or  corrected  through  other  supposed  sources 
of  information. 

I  will  not  full  discuss  these  points  here; 
but  will  remark  that  no  one  who  believes 
the  Bible  to  be  the  Word  of  God  can  ac- 
cept the  first.  To  him  it  is  unique;  unlike 
any  other  form  of  literature,  having  a  sacred 
character  of  its  own.  He  will  treat  it  as  such. 
No  one  would  criticise  a  loving  mother's  writ- 
ten message  as  he  would  faulty,  common  liter- 
ature. The  sane  man  who  has  had  property 
left  him,  if  he  believes  the  will  valid  and  the 
estate  valuable  will  not  go  into  court  to  point 
25 


Higher  Critics  and 

out  defects  in  the  document.  He  will  leave  all 
that  to  the  contesting  counsel.  His  relation 
to  it  will  define  his  attitude. 

The  second  he  must  also  lay  aside  if  he 
considers  that  God  is  in  any  real  sense  its 
author.  It  can  not  be  a  piece  of  patchwork 
and  at  the  same  time  a  connected  Divine  reve- 
lation. 

He  must  reject  the  third,  or  renounce 
Christ  as  an  absolute  authority. 

If  he  admits  the  fourth,  he  assumes  at 
once  that  much  of  the  teaching  of  the  Bible 
was  temporary  and  false— even  that  of  the 
New  Testament. 

If  he  receives  the  fifth,  he  puts  reason 
above  inspired  history  and  assumes  that  he 
has  a  perfect  canon  of  credibility  and  the 
right  to  reject  any  or  all  the  facts. 

The  sixth  changes  the  Bible  from  being  a 
peculiar  supernatural  form  of  inspiration 
into  simply  a  peculiar  product  of  an  inspira- 
tion which  God  is  willing  to  impart  to  all,  as 
Abbott  holds. 

26 


the  Modern  View 

Wlien  he  adopts  tlie  first  part  of  the 
seventh  he  assumes  the  very  thing  the  critics 
must  prove  before  they  can  advance  a  step. 
Should  he  believe  the  second  part  of  the 
seventh,  he  believes  an  absurdity  if  inspira- 
tion retains  its  commonly-accepted  Scriptural 
meaning. 

The  eighth  supposes  the  Bible  to  be  of  no 
special  historical  value  in  itself,  and  outside 
data  very  reliable  which  we  know  is  not 
true;  and  allows  the  critic  to  play  fast 
and  loose  with  all  Biblical  events,  as  he  usu- 
ally does. 

To  my  mind  the  crucial  question  respect- 
ing those  who  adopt  and  use  these  assump- 
tions, principles,  or  criteria  and  other  sim- 
ilar ones  or  their  modifications,  is  not  as  to 
whether  they  are  constructive  or  destructive 
critics,  or  entertain  conservative  or  extreme 
views;  but  as  to  whether  they  conduct  their 
investigation  of  the  phenomena  and  origin 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  a  right  or  a  wrong 
way,  and  as  to  whether  their  results  are  cor- 
27 


Higher  Critics  and 

rect  or  false.  All  else  is  so  much  dust  for  the 
eyes. 

Men  may  call  themselves  constructive 
critics,  and  claim  to  be  much  less  extreme 
than  others,  and  be  so,  and  yet  do  very  much 
more  damage  to  our  evangelical  faith  than 
confessed  rationalists  or  agnostics. 

We  have  great  regard  for  many  of  these 
because  of  their  labors  in  the  past  in  the  in- 
terest of  the  Church  of  God ;  their  intellectual 
gifts  and  their  many  attractive  personal  qual- 
ities. To  oppose  their  views  and  methods  is 
no  pleasant  duty,  but  a  duty  from  which  no 
one  should  shrink  who  professes  to  lay  more 
store  by  truth  than  error,  and  by  Christ  than 
personal  esteem  or  friendships. 

They  do  not  stand  alone.  They  have  men 
who  strongly  sympathize  with  them  who  are 
working  on  parallel  lines  in  other  fields  of 
thought  and  learning. 

They  all  evidently  think  that  as  prophets, 
reformers,  and  scholars  they  are  called  to  a 
great  mission— not  only  to  tear  down  and 
28 


the  Modern  View 

then  reconstruct  the  Bible,  freeing  us  from 
all  traditional  and  superstitious  views  of  the 
Scriptures,  but  to  broaden  the  life  of  their  va- 
rious denominations,  to  lower  our  standards 
and  revolutionize  our  religious  views  and  doc- 
trines, giving  us  a  new  theology  as  well  as  a 
new  Bible. 

Seemingly  they  would  like  to  do  what  the 
Gnostics  and  the  Schoolmen  sought  to  accom- 
plish—to fuse  faith  and  science,  religion  and 
philosophy,  as  well  as  critical  learning  and 
the  Scriptures,  by  giving  to  the  opposers  of 
true  Christianity  nearly  all  they  claim.  As 
philosophers  they  largely  ignore  the  super- 
natural, trace  conscience  to  a  natural  origin, 
subject  religious  feelings  to  psychological 
analysis,  and  claim  that  ethical  ideas  are 
evolved  and  can  have  no  permanent  standard, 
and  that  the  New  Birth  is  not  a  distinct  work 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  nor  a  religious  crisis,  but 
an  educational  process— a  development  or 
growth. 

They  usually  take  the  fashionable  theory 
29 


Higher  Critics  and 

of  evolution  into  all  the  problems  of  life,  even 
into  the  interpretation  of  the  Bible  and  into 
religion  itself  as  a  working  hypothesis,  and 
by  this  account  for  and  explain  the  various 
phenomena  of  Christianity.  They  seem  to 
think  that  in  it  they  have  found  a  rational 
basis  for  orthodoxy,  and  thus  a  way  through 
science  to  faith. 

So  we  see  philosophy,  science,  theology, 
and  higher  criticism  now  moving  along  on 
parallel  lines  like  an  electric-car  on  a  track 
with  three  rails.  The  third  rail,  in  this  in- 
stance, is  the  great  scientific  fad  of  the  times 
— evolution. 

We  are  in  a  transition  age.  It  is  evident 
that  a  rapid  change  is  going  on  in  the  minds 
of  men  as  to  their  views  of  a  Christian  life 
and  Divine  truth.  The  men  who  stand  for  a 
new  Biblical  interpretation  and  a  new  the- 
ology think  that  it  is  a  wave  of  progress.  Dr. 
Edward  Everett  Hale,  a  clear-headed  Uni- 
tarian, thinks  that  it  is  the  converging  of  the 
Biblical  and  religious  thought  of  the  times  to 
30 


the  Modern  View 

liis  standpoint.  Multitudes,  however,  in  our 
various  evangelical  bodies  think  that  the 
movement  is  simply  a  drift  from  Christ  and 
the  old  ethical  and  doctrinal  standards 
towards  anarchy  in  life  and  belief. 

The  constructive  higher  critics,  by  far  the 
most  important  factors  in  the  new  movement, 
are  doing  a  great  deal  of  preparatory  work. 
Whatever  is  their  purpose,  it  is  easily  seen 
that  they  are  sweeping  the  stage  clear,  as  far 
as  they  can,  of  all  the  generally  accepted 
views  of  Scripture,  and  are  seeking  to  rele- 
gate to  the  attic  large  portions  of  Old  Testa- 
ment history,  and  much  of  the  New,  leaving 
the  way  clear  for  all  the  various  speculative 
theories  that  may  follow.  They  make  a  dis- 
tinction, wholly  unwarranted,  between  reve- 
lation and  what  they  call  the  Biblical  record, 
and  appear  to  think  that  the  record  can  be 
turned  and  twisted  into  almost  any  form  to 
suit  the  purpose  in  hand. 

One  of  them,  in  a  recent  book,  opens  up  the 
heart  and  method  of  the  higher  criticism  and 
31 


Higher  Critics  and 

the  new  theology— hits  the  bull's-eye  straight 
when,  answering  the  objection  that  ^^evolu- 
tion contradicts  the  Biblical  record  of  cre- 
ation/' he  says:  ^^ These  numerous  theories 
show  that  it  is  much  easier  to  adjust  the  Bib- 
lical record  to  a  scientific  hypothesis  than  it 
is  to  refute  the  hypothesis."* 

Men  have  all  along  been  busy  attempting 
to  adjust  records.  Jacob  adjusted  his  family 
record  to  suit  his  ambition;  the  party  boss 
adjusts  the  polling  record  to  suit  his  party 
or  himself;  a  partial  writer  adjusts  historical 
records  to  glorify  his  hero ;  and  a  sophistical 
theorist  will  accommodate  almost  any  record 
to  suit  his  favorite  hypothesis. 

A  thoughtful,  reasonable  man,  however, 
usually  adjusts  his  theories  to  the  facts.  If 
in  a  moment  of  weakness  he  should  seek  to 
change  a  record  written  with  pencil  or  in 
sand,  he  will  hesitate  to  attempt  to  destroy  a 
record  such  as  we  find  in  Holy  Writ,  which 
makes  note  of  so  many  wonderful  circum- 

*  Terry,  The  New  Apologetic,  p.  70. 

32 


the  Modern  View 

stances— such  stupendous  facts— so  closely 
related  to  God's  presence  and  revelations,  es- 
pecially if  he  is  tempted  to  do  it  in  favor  of  an 
hypothesis,  such  as  the  evolutionary  theory 
which  never  has  been  verified,  possibly  never 
can  be,  and  which  may  yet  be  overturned  by 
some  other  scientific  theory  as  the  Ptolemaic 
astronomical  theory  was  by  the  Copernican. 
He  is  afraid  enough  of  facts  to  dread  to  at- 
tack them,  even  if  they  are  as  small  as  the 
point  of  a  needle.  Our  higher  critics,  how- 
ever, stand  no  more  in  awe  of  facts  than  they 
do  in  awe  of  traditions.  They  attack  them 
with  utter  recklessness. 

The  facts,  fundamental  many  of  them, 
contained  in  the  early  part  of  the  Biblical 
record,  such  as  the  story  of  creation,  the  cre- 
ation of  man  and  then  the  woman,  their  cre- 
ation in  the  image  of  Grod,  their  fall  and  ex- 
pulsion from  the  garden,  and  the  implied 
promise  of  redemption,  are  not  easily  recon- 
ciled with  scientific  evolution  theories.  They 
are  not  easily  reconciled,  even,  if  you  adopt 
3  33 


Higher  Critics  and 

the  modified  tlieistic-creative  process  theory 
and  any  of  the  many  interpretations  of  the 
record  of  alleged  facts.  Theorists  have  dis- 
covered this  to  be  true,  for  notwithstanding 
they  have  rearranged  the  facts,  turned  them 
over  and  twisted  them  around,  they  continue 
to  be  as  troublesome  as  a  Chinese  puzzle.  Di- 
vested of  all  traditional  interpretation,  these 
recorded  facts  seem  to  defy  adjustment.  The 
higher  critics,  seeing  this,  cut  the  gordian 
knot.  They  adjust  the  record  to  the  theory, 
by  wiping  out  the  facts  altogether  that  stand 
in  the  way  from  the  pages  of  reliable  history. 
They  do  this,  and  at  the  same  time  establish 
a  theory  of  inspiration  that  is  to  relieve  them 
of  any  difficulty  that  may  arise  in  connection 
with  almost  any  hypothesis ;  namely,  that  the 
Bible  is  fallible,  and  is  not  in  the  commonly 
received  sense  inspired  in  anything  that  per- 
tains to  history,  science,  logic,  or  other  ele- 
ments of  like  nature. 

So  we  find  them  almost  unanimous  in  re- 
garding Adam  as  a  myth,  the  antediluvian 
34 


the  Modern  View 

worthies  as  eponymous  heroes;  and  the  fall, 
the  institution  of  the  Sahhath,  and  the  flood 
as  fictitious  stories.  They  represent  other 
historical  portions  in  the  same  way. 

Their  great  leader,  Wellhausen,  in  his 
*  ^  Prolegomena  to  the  History  of  Israel, ' '  says : 
^* Abraham  is  not  an  historical  person.''  ^^A 
whole  series  of  stories  about  the  patriarchs 
are  cultus  myths. ' '  He  speaks  of  incidents  in 
other  historical  books  as  '^  pious  make-ups 
without  a  word  of  truth  in  them. "  ' '  Is  it  (the 
Deluge)  literal  history?"  Dr.  Harper  asks. 
He  answers:  ^^No.  Nor  is  the  Book  of  Job 
history,  nor  the  Books  of  Chronicles,  nor  the 
Books  of  Kings,  nor  the  Books  of  Samuel."* 
^^The  primitive  sources  of  Biblical  history," 
says  Dr.  Briggs,  ^'are  mythologies,  legends, 
poems,  laws,  whether  inscribed,  written,  or 
traditional,  historical  documents,  and  the  use 
of  the  historical  imagination,  "t  One  of  the 
most    conservative    of    the    critics,    George 


♦Biblical  World,  vol.  4,  p.  120. 
+  Study  of  Holy  Scriptures,  p. 

35 


Higher  Critics  and 

Adam  Smith,  says;  ^'In  the  pre-Abrahamic 
account  we  are  not  dealing  with  history. 
Some  of  these  Old  Testament  characters  were 
not  real  individuals,  but  were  as  fabulous  as 
Prometheus.  The  first  nine  chapters  of  Gene- 
sis to  a  large  extent  were  taken  from  the 
raw  material  of  Babylonian  myths  and 
legends."*  How  closely  these  follow  in  the 
footsteps  of  Tom  Paine  who  wrote,  *^I  look 
on  everything  in  the  first  ten  chapters  of 
Genesis  as  fictitious."  They  certainly  give 
us  nothing  new.  They,  however,  will  not 
allow  even  the  New  Testament  to  interfere 
with  this  evolution  hypothesis.  Professor 
Foster,  of  Chicago  University,  condemns 
Paul  for  referring  to  Adam  as  a  fallen  or 
as  an  historic  man,  saying:  ^^If  Paul  had 
been  a  man  of  science  or  of  history,  he  would 
not  have  said,  *As  in  Adam  all  die,  so  in 
Christ  shall  all  be  made  alive.'  " 

Might  it  not  be  prudent  for  these  revo- 
lutionists to  pause  and  listen  to  Professor 


♦Yale  Lectures,  Stenographic  Report,  Zion's  Herald. 

36 


the  Modern  View 

G.  Macloskie,  of  the  Department  of  Biology, 
Princeton  University,  as  he  calls  attention 
to  the  fact  that  scientific  evolution  has  not 
yet  settled  the  question  of  man's  origin,  and 
then  says:  '^ Under  these  circumstances  it 
would  seem  premature  to  be  readjusting  our 
Scriptural  notions  so  as  to  accord  with  sci- 
entific theories,  not  yet  even  formulated. 
Scientific  investigators  themselves  are  call- 
ing a  halt." 

But  these  modes  of  adjusting  are  so 
'^easy''  that  they  are  tempting— as  easy  as 
Columbus's  way  of  making  an  egg  stand. 
Marcus  Dods  claims  that  whosoever  is  afraid 
of  facts  does  not  believe  in  God.  These 
critics  are  evidently  not  afraid  of  facts,  and 
they  profess  to  have  much  faith.  But  when 
you  see  their  faith  growing  and  reaching 
the  gigantic  strength  that  performs  works 
greater  than  the  Master  wrought,  you  may 
be  certain  that  they  are  preparing  to  cast 
some  mighty  mountain  of  difficulty  alto- 
gether out  of  the  Biblical  record  and  into 
37 


Higher  Critics  and 

some     mythical,     legendary,     fictitious,     or 
poetic  sea. 

It  is  a  very  simple,  but  a  very  effective, 
manner  of  adjusting,  and  when  one  becomes 
accustomed  to  it  he  can  do  it  in  various  ways 
and  as  easily  as  a  player  can  change  the  men 
on  a  chess-board.  And  ' '  of  course  it  is  easy 
to  prove  anything  when  you  remove  from  the 
text  whatever  militates  against  your  posi- 
tion;'' but  it  is  neither  a  reasonable  nor  a 
scientific  method.  That  it  is  a  very  dangerous 
procedure  we  will  attempt  to  show  elsewhere. 
Professor  Sayce's  words  will,  however,  be  in 
place  here.  He  says:  ^'Nevertheless,  be- 
tween the  recognition  of  the  human  element 
in  the  Old  Testament,  and  the  ' critical'  con- 
tention that  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  are  filled 
with  myths  and  historical  blunders,  pious 
frauds,  and  ante-dated  documents,  the  dis- 
tance is  great.  Beyond  a  certain  point  the 
conclusions  of  'criticism'  come  into  conflict 
with  the  articles  of  the  Christian  faith.  The 
New  Testament  not  only  presupposes,  but 
38 


the  Modern  View 

also  rests  upon  the  Old  Testament,  and  in 
addition  to  this  the  method  and  principles 
which  have  resolved  the  narratives  of  the  Old 
Testament  into  myths,  or  the  illusions  of 
credulous  Orientals,  must  have  the  same  re- 
sult when  applied  to  the  New  Testament. 
From  a  ^critical'  point  of  view  the  miracu- 
lous birth  of  our  Lord  rests  upon  no  better 
evidence  than  the  story  of  the  exodus  out  of 
Egypt.''* 


♦Monument  Facts  and  Higher  Critical  Fancies,  p.  125. 


39 


Deintegration  and 
Reintegration 


"The  existence  of  the  Bible  as  a  book  for  the  peo- 
ple is  the  greatest  benefit  which  the  human  race  has 
ever  experienced.  Every  attempt  to  belittle  it,  or  to 
do  away  with  it  entirely,  is  a  crime  against  humanity." 
—Kant. 


42 


Deintegratlon  and 
Reintegration 

The  special  feature  of  the  higher  crit- 
icism of  to-day  is  not  only  the  accommoda- 
tion of  the  Bible  to  evolution  in  a  general 
way,  but  the  working  out  of  the  history  of 
Israel  on  the  hypothesis  that  that  people  and 
all  that  pertained  to  them,  the  sacred  writ- 
ings, laws,  ethical  ideas,  and  religion  itself 
was  an  evolution— a  steady  progression; 
from  the  lowest  Bedouin  condition  in  Moses' 
time  to  its  enlargement  in  Christ;  each 
epochal  period  being  the  product  of  what 
preceded  it,  and  Christ  the  ^^ flower''  of  it 
all.  To  some  He  is  a  new  moral  creation,  but 
to  most  the  end  of  an  evolution.  It  is  also 
claimed  that  the  beginning  of  the  Christian 
Church  was  not  cataclysmal,  but  a  develop- 
ment, and  that  the  history  of  Christianity 
since  has  been  a  continuous  progression. 
43 


Deintegration 

This  evolution  hypothesis  is  now  ac- 
cepted as  a  basal  idea  by  higher  critics  quite 
generally,  though  by  some  perhaps  with  vari- 
ations. Some  scarcely  disclose  it.  The  work 
^' Moses  and  the  Prophets''  never  reveals 
this  naturalistic  backbone  by  name,  though  it 
conforms  in  its  framework  throughout  to 
this  theory.  Dr.  Briggs  occasionally  dis- 
closes it.  Professor  A.  Duff  frankly  an- 
nounces it,  saying,  ^'Our  exposition  must 
prove  to  be  a  vision  of  a  steady  progress  of 
religion  through  the  ages.''  ^ ^ Evolution, " 
Dr.  Peters  assures  us,  ^  ^  has  become  an  axiom 
of  modern  thought. ' '  He  shows  us  how  use- 
ful it  may  be  made  in  remaking  Biblical  his- 
tory, and  characterizes  such  as  overlook  this 
*^ basal  idea"  as  mere  ^'dabblers"  in  higher 
criticism. 

Nothing  could  be  more  revolutionary 
than  this  hypothesis  as  it  is  applied  by  the 
critics  to  the  history  of  Israel  and  all  that 
relates  to  it,  and  no  honest  purpose  can  be 
served  by  hiding  or  ignoring  it. 
44 


Reintegration 

Evolution  is  a  world-view,  and  is  axiom- 
atic in  higher  critical  thought ;  but  it  is  really 
nothing  more  than  a  theory.  That  man  de- 
scended from  the  animal  finds  no  support  in 
facts.  ^'It  has  not  been  demonstrated  by  a 
single  phenomenon.''*  And  what  we  know 
of  his  constitution  and  history  goes  to  prove 
the  contrary.  Man's  spiritual  nature  is  not 
recognized  as  yet  as  within  the  realm  of  sci- 
ence, and  consequently  no  principle  like  this 
can  be  postulated  of  it.  Physically  man  is 
now,  according  to  the  teachings  of  science, 
what  he  has  always  been,  so  far  as  we  know 
his  history.  He  modifies  his  environments 
more  than  he  is  modified  by  them.  Even 
should  we  see  the  principle  of  development 
in  human  thought,  it  would  not  necessarily 
follow  that  it  must  predominate  in  human 
history,  for  men  now  see  clearly  that  thought 
is  not  the  largest  factor  in  human  life.  IVill 
and  force  are  much  more  influential  in  their 
nature,  and  being  individual  in  their  oper- 

*  Professor  H.  Bovinck,  Methodist  Review  (1901),  p.  859. 

45 


Deintegration 

ation  they  can  not  be  continuous;  and  not 
being  continuous  tbey  can  not  be  evolution- 
ary. Man,  as  a  free-will  agent,  is  a  creative 
power.  ^^ Every  action  of  human  free-will," 
says  Lord  Kelvin,  one  of  the  leading  scien- 
tists of  the  day,  *4s  a  miracle  to  physical 
and  chemical  and  mathematical  science.''  If 
this  is  true,  then,  in  the  eye  of  science,  man's 
history,  instead  of  being  a  progressive  de- 
velopment, is  a  succession  of  human  free- 
will, creative  miracles.  But  historical  facts 
show  us  that  man,  as  man,  has  not  progressed 
in  intellectual  power.  What  poets,  artists, 
or  philosophers  have  we  that  can  compare 
with  the  Homers  and  Dantes,  the  Phidiases 
and  Raphaels,  or  Aristotles  and  Bacons  of  the 
past?  Does  the  student  of  history  find  any 
reason  to  suppose  that  human  nature  is  any 
less  cruel  or  more  moral  now  than  ages  ago ! 
or  that  religious  ideas  or  practices  are  any 
more  advanced  among  pagan  peoples  than  in 
archaic  times!  or  among  Christians  more 
than  during  the  early  days  of  the  Church? 
46 


Reintegration 

Certainly  not.  Archaeological  research  has 
proven  that  even  primitive  man  must  have 
been  anything  but  the  low  brute  men  some 
years  ago  supposed  he  was.  Indeed,  the 
further  the  antiquary  goes  down  into  Eg}^- 
tian,  Assyrian,  Syrian,  Babylonian,  Greek, 
and  Etruscan  excavations,  the  purer  he 
usually  finds  the  forms  of  art,  architecture, 
literature,  and  even  religion. 

They  do  not  prove  but  assume  this  work- 
ing hj^othesis  to  be  true,  and  then  proceed 
to  adopt  a  long  series  of  other  suppositions 
or  ^'tentative  suggestions."  They  assume, 
for  instance,  that  the  making  of  the  Bible 
did  not  begin  until  many  centuries  after 
Moses.  Then  they  use  the  double-document 
theory,  which  is  the  supposition  that  the 
Hexateuch— i.  e.,  the  Pentateuch  plus  Joshua 
—originally  consisted  in  part  of  two  sepa- 
rate and  distinct  narratives,  distinguished 
from  each  other  as  Jehovistic  and  Elohistic, 
through  the  use  of  the  name  Jehovah  for  God 


47 


Deintegration 

in  the  one,  and  the  use  of  the  word  Elohim 
for  God  in  the  other. 

To  the  fictitious  writers  of  these  docu- 
ments, who  it  is  imagined  did  not  live  earlier 
than  800  B.  C,  they  give  the  inv^ented  names 
J  and  E,  and  to  another  of  a  later  date,  who 
is  supposed  to  have  combined  these  together, 
they  attach  the  name  JE.  They  conjecture 
that  Deuteronomy  was  the  book  of  the  law 
discovered  by  Hilkiah  in  Josiah's  time,  and 
that  Moses  was  not  its  author,  but  that  it  was 
written  many  centuries  after  him,  and  as- 
cribed to  him,  many  think,  to  add  to  its 
weight.  They  suppose  that  the  Priests' 
Code,  so  fully  given  in  Exodus,  Leviticus, 
and  Numbers,  was  devised  and  framed  dur- 
ing the  Exilic  period,  mainly  to  advance  the 
interests  of  the  Sacerdotal  class.  A  few 
years  afterwards  all  these  documents  were 
woven  or  combined  together  by  a  redactor 
whom  they  call  E.  They  establish  other 
theories,  to  harmonize  with  these,  respecting 
the  dates,  authorship,  composition,  and  char- 
48 


Reintegration 

acter  of  tlie  other  books,  and  claim  that  thus 
the  Bible  grew.  Almost  all  the  books,  ac- 
cording to  their  suppositions,  are  tainted 
with  rank  fraud,  either  as  to  their  date, 
author,  purpose,  statement,  real  character, 
or  claims,  and  yet-  these  orthodox  critics 
speak  of  them  as  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  a 
wonderful  revelation  of  God. 

One  can  not  fail  to  see  that  the  higher 
critical  method  consists  largely  in  a  succes- 
sion of  theories. 

Science  does  not  object  to  theories ;  but 
science  is  exacting,  and  it  requires  that  each 
hypothesis  shall  demonstrate  its  own  valid- 
ity. It  must  account  for  all  the  facts  in  the 
case.  It  must  do  more.  Dumas'  theory  of 
the  man-in-the-iron-mask  is  a  very  satisfac- 
tory explanation  of  the  facts  in  that  strange 
mystery,  but  it  does  not  prove  that  the  pris- 
oner was  really  the  elder  brother  of  Louis 
XIV. 

If  the  higher  critical  theories  should  ac- 
count for  all  the  facts  in  Israel's  history  and 
4  49 


Deintegration 

in  the  Bible  itself,  that  would  not  prove  them 
true.  It  must  be  shown  that  they  have  a 
general  application.  During  late  years  a 
very  destructive  disease  called  the  *^  Yel- 
lows'' has  attacked  the  Michigan  peach 
orchards,  which  has  greatly  puzzled  the 
Washington  government  experts.  They 
formed  many  theories  as  to  the  cause  and 
the  cure.  One  hypothesis  seemed  to  meet  the 
facts  in  the  case  in  one  or  two  orchards ;  but 
to  the  great  disappointment  of  the  farmers 
it  failed  when  applied  in  other  orchards.  If 
it  had  met  the  case  in  a  large  number  of 
orchards,  men  would  have  concluded  that  it 
was  pr oh  ably  the  correct  hypothesis.  A 
theory  or  any  number  of  theories  can  not 
establish  a  theory;  only  facts  can  do  that, 
and  they  must  be  facts  outside  of  the  special 
case,  as  Dr.  John  Smith  in  his  masterly  book, 
^^The  Integrity  of  Scripture,"  shows. 

Now  we  have  seen  already  that  this  natu- 
ralistic   Graf-Wellhausen    historical    devel- 
opment hypothesis  fails  when  applied  to  the 
50 


Reintegration 

history  of  mankind.  It  fails  just  as  signally 
when  applied  to  the  history  of  any  nation 
respecting  whom  we  have  any  certain  histor- 
ical data.  For  progress,  though  a  marked 
feature  in  the  history  of  many  peoples,  is 
never  the  product  of  a  steady  evolutionary 
process,  but  is  largely  the  result  of  the  creat- 
ive energy  of  one  or  more  great  personalities, 
such  as  King  Alfred  and  Washington  in  gov- 
ernment, Chaucer  in  literature.  Bacon  in  sci- 
ence, and  Luther  and  Wesley  in  religion. 

What  is  true  of  this  hypothesis  is  true 
of  their  other  principal  theories.  You  can 
find  no  facts  outside  of  the  case  in  hand  to 
prove  them  correct.  In  the  nature  of  things 
they  can  find  no  facts  in  contemporary  Israel- 
itish  literature,  for  none  is  known  to  exist. 

But  not  only  do  their  theories  fail  to 
demonstrate  their  validity  by  facts  outside 
of  the  Bible,  but  they  fail  utterly  to  account 
for  the  facts  in  the  Bible.  They  consequently 
fall  to  the  ground.  Professor  Adolf  Jii- 
licher,  of  Marburg,  himself  an  advanced 
51 


Deintegration 

higher  critic,  storms  against  this  ^^enormoiis 
traffic  in  hypotheses''  and  the  ''busy  mill  of 
conjecture *'  of  the  leading  critics. 

The  system  is  obviously  an  air  castle,  con- 
sisting mainly  in  conjectures,  assumptions, 
and  theories,  wholly  unsupported  by  object- 
ive facts. 

Their  composite  theories  have  no  histor- 
ical proof.  The  conjecture  that  two  narra- 
tives were  combined  in  one  during  the  Exilic 
period  is  wholly  without  proof,  and  alto- 
gether improbable,  for  the  Babylonian 
records  of  the  Deluge  as  old  as  1800  to  2000 
years  B.  C,  as  Professor  G.  F.  Wright 
shows,  combine  in  one  account  both  the  Elo- 
histic  and  the  Jehovistic  documents  in  the 
same  order  as  in  Genesis.  That  the  Deuter- 
onomic  document  originated  during  Josiah's 
reign,  and  the  Priests'  Code  during  the  Cap- 
tivity, is  without  foundation  in  fact  from 
any  source.  It  is  just  as  absurd  to  suppose 
that  these  codes  were  imposed  upon  a  credu- 
lous people  as  the  critics  claim,  as  it  would 
52 


Reintegration 

be  to  suppose  that  the  Napoleonic,  Justinian, 
or  the  recently  discovered  Hammurabi  Code 
of  laws  originated  in  the  same  way,  espe- 
cially when  we  remember  how  slow  Orientals 
are  to  change  their  customs  or  religious 
usages,  and  how  jealously  they  guard  their 
sacred  writings. 

Taking  the  Biblical  record  as  simply  rea- 
sonably reliable,  it  can  be  easily  seen  that 
their  working  hypothesis  and  the  subsidiary 
ones  are  at  once  utterly  overthrown. 

Moses,  throughout  the  Old  and  New  Tes- 
taments, is  represented  as  a  highly  enlight- 
ened and  great  creative  mind,  who  was  in- 
spired and  commissioned  directly  by  God  not 
only  to  be  a  prophet  and  a  deliverer  to  his 
people,  but  to  crystallize  them  into  a  com- 
pact, theocratic  commonwealth.  It  is  clearly 
made  to  appear  that  he  created  a  literature, 
poetry  as  well  as  history,  and  framed  civil 
and  religious  codes  of  laws,  not  all  neces- 
sarily new,  but  all  made  known  as  the  will 
of  God,  for  the  time  being,  under  extraor- 
53 


Deintegration 

dinary,  supernatural  circumstances.  In  thus 
composing  songs,  writing  accounts  of  events, 
and  in  the  codification  of  the  laws,  Moses  was 
doing  nothing  new,  but  what  intelligent  men 
had  been  doing  in  various  countries  for  ages. 
This  is  shown  by  the  Hammurabi  Code  of 
laws  and  other  forms  of  literature  lately  dis- 
covered. Yet  in  doing  all  this,  and  much 
more,  he  laid,  under  God's  direction,  a  broad 
foundation  for  God's  further  wonderful  writ- 
ten revelation  of  Himself,  and  gave  a  power- 
ful moral  and  spiritual  bias  and  impulse  to 
his  race. 

No  other  people  ever  had  such  a  Divine 
start,  and  no  man  can  explain  their  Old  Tes- 
tament history  and  its  culmination  in  Christ 
and  Christianity,  but  in  the  light  of  just  such 
a  glorious  beginning. 

They  were  not  uncivilized  ^'Bedouins'* 
at  the  time  of  the  Exodus.  It  would  be 
strange,  indeed,  if  they  could  be  shown  to 
have  lived  as  a  race  amid  the  civilizing  in- 
fluences of  the  Egyptians  for  over  four  hun- 
dred years  in  semi-savagism,  and  then  to 
54 


Reintegration 

have  passed  centuries  in  Canaan  as  God's 
people  with  the  lowest  possible  ethical  and 
religious  ideals,  and  without  any  written 
ceremonial  or  civil  laws,  or  central  place  of 
worship,  while  their  neighbors,  the  Hittites, 
Phoenicians,  Greeks,  Syrians,  Assyrians, 
Egyptians,  and  Babylonians,  were  enjoying  a 
degree  of  civilization  that  amazes  the  arch- 
aeologist. 

If  the  Biblical  representations  have  any 
weight,  many  of  their  best  ethical  and  re- 
ligious ideas  were  their  earliest,  and  the 
noblest  of  their  heroes  and  the  wisest  of  their 
sages  were  not  the  latest,  but  those  who  lived 
in  the  early  or  middle  stages. 

At  various  periods  they  are  spoken  of  as 
a  ^^backsliding''  people.  God,  through  Jere- 
miah, tells  them  that  He  ^'planted"  them  **a 
noble  vine,  wholly  a  right  seed,"  and  won- 
ders why  they  are  '^turned  into  the  degener- 
ate plant  of  a  strange  vine."*  Long  before 
Christ's  time  national  decadence  was  a 
marked  feature;  prophecy  had  ceased;  and 
the   scattered    and    declining   remnant   had 

♦Jeremiah  ii,  21.  55 


Deintegration 

sunk  into  a  cold,  dead,  spiritless,  sterile  form- 
alism. 

They  can  not  deduce  their  hypothesis 
from  such  a  history.  They  do  not  pretend  to 
do  so.  Instead  of  a  philosophical  or  logical 
deduction,  they  offer  us  an  arbitrary  assump- 
tion, and  then  take  for  granted  that  whatever 
in  the  Bible  does  not  agree  with  it  must  be 
wrong.  For  instance,  because  the  theistic, 
ethical,  ceremonial,  or  civic  ideas  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch, the  Psalms,  Proverbs,  portions  of 
Isaiah,  and  other  books  are  of  an  advanced, 
high,  and  noble  character,  these  critics  con- 
clude that  these  writings  belong,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  demands  of  their  theory,  to 
periods  much  later  than  those  of  their  re- 
puted authors  or  dates,  in  many  cases  numer- 
ous centuries  later  than  that  which  Biblical 
history  uniformly  assigns  to  them ;  and  conse- 
quently these  out-of-date  authors  could  not 
have  written  them.  The  low  condition  of  their 
age  would  not  permit  it.  Under  any  consid- 
eration they  were  not  capable  of  doing  it— 
56 


Reintegration 

David  and  Solomon  notably  so.  The  savag- 
ism  of  Moses'  time  made  it  impossible  for 
him  to  frame  the  civic  or  priestly  code,  or  to 
compose  the  Pentateuch. 

The  inconsistency  of  such  procedure 
makes  one  wonder  whether  he  is  dealing  with 
sober  criticism  or  not;  for  if  the  history  of 
the  Bible  is  wholly  unreliable  as  they  as- 
sume, how  can  they  form  a  correct  estimate, 
through  it,  of  the  character  of  such  men  or 
of  their  times  ? 

In  forming  our  estimate  of  reputed 
authors,  do  we  wholly  ignore  their  writ- 
ings! From  what  we  know  of  the  lives 
of  such  men  as  Bacon,  Shakespeare,  Byron, 
or  Burns,  outside  of  their  writings,  would  we 
naturally  suppose  them  capable  of  producing 
the  splendid  moral  and  spiritual  sentiments 
which  their  reputed  writings  contain? 

What  a  strange  aspect  modern  literature 

would  have  if  judged  in  this  higher  critical 

way!    The  Elizabethan  writings  would  have 

to  be  shoved  up  to  this  wonderful  modern 

57 


Deintegration 

Maccabean  age,  and  the  liiglier  critics  them- 
selves back  to  the  days  of  the  Gnostics. 

It  is  certainly  very  absurd,  to  say  the 
least,  for  these  critics  as  orthodox  Chris- 
tians to  adopt  this  naturalistic  evolution 
theory,  which  Kuenen  himself  admitted  was 
not  proven,  and  then  proceed  to  break  up  the 
Scripture  which  Christ  said  ^^can  not  be 
broken,^'  and  cut  off,  stretch  out,  add  to,  or 
in  some  other  way  adjust,  the  entire  Bible  to 
this  Procrustean  bed. 

They  nevertheless  do  this,  as  one  of  their 
leaders,  Dr.  J.  P.  Peters,  points  out  in  these 
words :  ^ '  Viewing  history,  then,  as  an  evolu- 
tion, we  have  a  working  hypothesis  which 
helps  to  fit  events,  institutions,  laws,  thoughts, 
beliefs,  customs,  rites,  and  ceremonies  into 
their  place  in  a  great  progressive  series.*' 
He  says  that  this  is  done  on  the  theory  that 
^'Each  rite,  each  opinion,  each  belief  is  de- 
veloped out  of  something  which  preceded  it.  *  '* 

In  adjusting  the  entire  Bible  to  this  hy- 

*  The  Old  Testament  and  the  New  Scholarship,  p.  94. 

58 


Reintegration 

pothesis,  in  this  way,  these  critics  do  not  b;^ 
any  means  confine  themselves  to  original  re- 
search or  new  material.  They  use  stock 
arguments,  phrases,  and  theories,  borrow  lib- 
erally from  each  other  and  all  others  who 
have  preceded  them  in  Biblical  study,  but 
especially  of  such  men  as  Porphyry,  Spinoza, 
Voltaire,  Paine,  Strauss,  and  Renan.  Before 
many  of  their  present  popular  theories  were 
thought  of,  men  had  used,  with  much  free- 
dom, in  their  attacks  on  the  Bible  critical 
rules  and  principles.  Ewald  had  attempted 
to  reconstruct  the  history  of  Israel  on  the 
basis  of  its  literature ;  Tom  Paine  had  antici- 
pated three-fourths  of  what  they  call  their 
assured  results  in  his  *^Age  of  Reason'^  and 
other  works. 

Furnished  with  these  helps,  they  claim 
to  be  able  to  reintegrate  the  entire  Bible,  re- 
adjusting all  its  parts  to  this  hypothesis.  In 
doing  this  they  make  new  historical  dates; 
place  the  events,  persons,  and  books  in  the 
new  dates;  find  new  authors  for  the  old 
59 


Deintegration 

books;  dissolve  what  they  call  composite 
books  into  their  original  documents,  and  con- 
fer on  them  new  names,  and  then  reconstruct 
the  books;  separate  other  books  like  Isaiah 
into  fragments,  and  make  the  fragments  fit 
into  their  proper  places,  though  scattered 
over  centuries  of  history ;  give  words  like  in- 
spiration, prophecy,  or  miracle  a  new  un- 
scriptural  meaning,  and  tell  what  in  a  book 
is  inspired  and  in  what  sense,  and  what  is  in- 
spired in  part,  and  what  is  not  inspired  at 
all.  They  reveal  what  is  miraculous,  and 
what  is  not;  distinguish  what  is  false,  and 
what  is  true ;  what  is  fiction,  and  what  is  fact ; 
what  is  mythical,  and  what  is  legendary ;  and 
what  is  a  fairy  tale,  and  what  is  real  history. 
They  point  out  mistakes  or  errors  in  regard 
to  logic,  grammar,  historical  facts,  and  Bib- 
lical interpretation  on  the  part  of  priests, 
prophets,  evangelists,  apostles,  and  even  our 
Lord  Himself. 

To  do  all  this  and  much  more  must  evi- 
dently tax  to  the  utmost  all  the  logical,  philo- 
60 


Reintegration 

sophical,  linguistic,  archaeological,  ethnolog- 
ical, mathematical,  and  scientific  powers  of 
these  extraordinary  scholars,  to  say  nothing 
of  the  heavy^  draft  it  must  make  on  their 
seemingly  inexhaustible  literary  and  histor- 
ical imaginative  resources.  They  would 
never  dare  to  attempt  all  this,  but  for  the  fact 
that  they  seem  to  think  subjective  criteria 
more  valuable  than  objective  facts,  and  with 
Schleiermacher  that  the  principles  of  feeling 
are  better  judges  than  the  reason. 

But  they  seem  to  think  they  have  an  in- 
fallibility of  their  own,  especially  in  their 
subjective  cogitations,  which  enables  them  to 
know  history  better  than  the  men  who  made 
it  or  narrated  it,  and  to  arrange  its  facts  as 
they  ought  to  be,  rather  than  as  they  are; 
the  aim  and  character  of  a  book  better 
than  the  one  who  wrote  it,  and  its  authorship 
than  the  people  to  whom  it  was  first  made 
known,  or  those  who  have  been  its  custodians 
from  then  until  now;  the  nature  of  a  docu- 
ment by  their  feelings,  and  its  age  by  its  lit- 
61 


Deintegration 

erary  odor;  all  its  myths  and  legends,  facts 
and  fables,  poetry  and  prose,  as  a  tailor 
knows  cloth ;  in  fact,  to  pass  on  all  that  is  in 
the  Bible  and  all  that  can  be  known  or  im- 
agined about  the  Bible  from  Genesis  to  Eeve- 
lation  with  scientific  exactness.  One  im- 
agines their  infallibility  enabling  them  to 
hear  the  dew  falling  on  Gideon's  dry  as  well 
as  on  his  wet  fleece,  and  the  ^' grass  growing'' 
nnder  Elijah's  feet  during  the  drought. 

However,  considering  how  liable  most 
men  are  to  fall  into  sophistries,  to  follow 
false  theories,  as  well  as  false  traditions,  to 
make  mistakes  in  distinguishing  literary 
qualities  and  colorings,  and  to  blunder  even 
in  the  use  of  proper  scientific  methods,  one 
would  be  prepared  to  make  some  allowance 
for  faulty  results ;  but  it  seems  that  mistakes 
are  impossible!  Their  ^'results"  are  ^^ as- 
sured, ' '  and  the  one  who  thinks  differently  is 
an  ignoramus ! 

By  their  infallible  use  of  their  perfect 
critical  scientific  system  they  can  weave  to- 
62 


Reintegration 

getlier  a  long  string  of  suppositions,  conject- 
ures, contingencies,  tentative  suggestions, 
and  probabilities,  and  actually  produce  cer- 
tainties! which  '^reconstruct  the  history  of  a 
nation,  in  square  contradiction  of  its  own  im- 
memorial traditions,"  and  which  transform 
into  romance  facts  that  have  been  held  as 
bed-rock  by  the  entire  Christian  Church  from 
the  beginning. 

Wonderful,  indeed,  is  critical  science  in 
the  hands  of  these  modern  scholars!  It  is 
evidently  an  amazing  Biblical  touchstone,  to 
which  you  must  bring  all  your  creeds  and 
prove  them  if  you  want  them  to  pass  current 
among  the  scholarly  upper-ten.  It  is  the  mill 
also  to  which  you  must  bring  your  Scriptural 
grist  if  you  want  it  to  be  ground  out  as  bran 
and  shorts  and  fine  flour.  If  you  will  do  this, 
you  will  then  be  sure  you  have  the  finest  of 
the  wheat ! 


63 


Reducing  the  Supernatural 
to  a  Minimum 


"Prove  all  things:  hold  fast  that  which  is  good."- 
Paul. 


Reducing  the  Supernatural 
to  a  Minimum 

When  confronted  with  a  theory  or  a  sys- 
tem, a  practical  man  will  seek  to  discern  what 
it  rests  upon  and  where  it  will  lead  him  if  he 
accepts  it.  If  men  who  profess  to  believe  in 
a  supernatural  religion  would  pursue  this 
course,  there  would  be  a  much  smaller  num- 
ber dabbling  nowadays  with  higher  criticism, 
as  no  system  ever  devised  was  better  fitted 
to  exclude  the  supernatural  from  the  Bible 
than  this. 

Its  ablest  exponents  have  usually  utterly 
repudiated  the  supernatural.  *^The  exclu- 
sion of  the  supernatural,"  wrote  Eenan,  '4s 
the  first  postulate  of  higher  criticism.''  Its 
whole  tendency,  to  say  the  least,  is  ' '  to  bring 
the  supernatural,"  as  Baur  confessed  it  was 
in  his  hands,  **to  an  absolute  minimum."  It 
67 


Reducing  the  Supernatural 

does  this  under  the  guise  of  a  rigid  search 
after  truth,  and  without  exciting  the  sus- 
picions of  the  superficial  student.  It  does 
this  in  various  ways. 

The  evolutionary  theory  is  very  master- 
ful, and  when  accepted  as  the  explanation 
of  religious  life  and  thought  we  must  assume 
that  whatever  was  essential  in  connection 
with  religion  in  Old  and  New  Testament 
times,  has  been  continuous,  and  exists  to-day, 
only  in  an  enlarged  degree,  whether  it  be  in- 
spiration, prophecy,  or  miracles.  If  the 
higher  critics  believed  that  the  early  Church 
possessed  these  in  an  unusual  way  and  were 
consistent,  they  might  see  in  the  Roman 
Catholic  Church,  the  true  Church,  as  she 
claims,  this  very  thing— the  supernatural  as 
a  continuous  gift,  even  to  the  sacrifice  in  the 
mass  and  the  infallibility  of  the  pope.  They, 
however,  claim  nothing  for  the  Church  as  an 
organization  in  this  relation,  but  accommo- 
date their  views  regarding  the  inspiration  of 
the  Bible  and  its  prophecies  and  miracles,  to 
68 


to  a  Minimum 

what  they  think  they  see  in  the  Church  now 
and  what  their  system  demands. 

They  use  the  old  terms,  but  attach  new 
meanings  to  them,  which  almost,  if  not 
wholly,  eliminate  the  supernatural. 

Revelation  as  represented  by  these  evo- 
lutionary critics  is  only  the  unveiling  of  a 
truth,  not  of  a  fact,  hitherto  unknown.*  This 
is  Tom  Paine 's  old  definition  rejuvenated. 

'^Inspiration  is  no  miracle,''  they  say, 
''but  a  regular  mode  of  God's  action  on  con- 
scious spirit."  Under  this*view  there  was  no 
supernatural  revelation  of  truths  or  facts 
made  to  the  intellect  of  the  Biblical  writer, 
nor  was  there  any  special  guiding  or  controll- 
ing influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God  on  his  spirit 
differing  in  character  from  that  which  acts 
upon  spiritual  minds  to-day.  He  wrote  what 
he  thought  or  felt  God  had  done.  So  the 
Bible  is  simply  the  story  of  man's  "spiritual 
aspirations,  his  dim,  half-seen  visions  of 
truth,  his  fragments  of  knowledge,  his  blun- 

*  Abbott's  Theology  of  an  Evolutionist,  p.  54. 

69 


Reducing  the  Supernatural 

ders,  his  struggles  with  the  errors  of  others 
and  with  his  own  prejudices."^ 

Such  a  Bible  is  necessarily  fallible,  not 
simply  because  it  contains  defective,  ethical, 
or  doctrinal  views,  or  false  history,  or  dis- 
crepancies, or  contradictions,  but  rather  be- 
cause of  its  essential  character  and  origin. 
It  is  man's  very  fallible  record  of  his  own 
imperfect  religious  experiences  and  of  truths 
and  facts  and  imaginations  very  inade- 
quately and  falsely  apprehended  and  ex- 
pressed, or,  as  Tom  Paine  would  put  it,  a 
record  ^^made  up  chiefly  of  manism  with  but 
little  deism."  Higher  critical  authorities— 
such  as  Driver,  Sanday,  and  Briggs— hold 
that  the  sacred  historians  had  no  aid  from 
God  in  gathering  the  material,  or  in  compos- 
ing their  narratives.  This  banishes  the  su- 
pernatural in  inspiration  from  the  three- 
fourths  of  the  Bible,  for  fully  as  much  as  that 
is  historical.  The  inspiration  of  its  own  con- 
tents differs  in  degree  only,  not  in  kind  from 

♦Abbott's  Theology  of  an  Evolutionist,  p.  56. 

70 


to  a  Minimum 

that  of  other  religious  books,  Christian  or 
pagan,  and  has  no  authoritative  character. 

Under  these  views  the  supernatural  in  in- 
spiration shrivels  to  almost  nothing.  We 
will  show  further  on  how  they,  by  the  use  of 
these  views  in  connection  with  their  other 
theories,  principles,  assumptions,  and  adjust- 
ments, pave  the  way  for  the  elimination  of 
the  supernatural  from  the  Bible  almost 
wholly. 

Such  views  are,  however,  essential  to  the 
higher  critical  system. 

They  are  nevertheless  thoroughly  revo- 
lutionary, and  must,  should  they  prevail,  rad- 
ically change  our  whole  conception  and  treat- 
ment of  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  our  most 
fundamental  beliefs. 

I  hold  that  they  are  without  Scriptural 
support,  and  are  wholly  unwarranted  by 
reason. 

The  key  to  a  correct  interpretation  of  the 
Bible  is  not  to  be  found  in  philosophical  prin- 
ciples, such  as  the  newer  criticism  offers, 
71 


Reducing  the  Supernatural 

but  in  the  Book  itself.  Any  one  studying  the 
Book  unbiased  by  such  theories  must  see  that 
it  purports  to  be  something  much  more  than 
the  *^  peculiar  product  of  inspiration  of  an 
ordinary  character."  And  if  we  can  judge 
any  cause  by  what  it  produces,  the  Bible  is 
the  product  of  a  special,  particular,  unique, 
and  extraordinary  inspiration  and  revela- 
tion. 

Its  history  is  sacred  narrative  of  which 
the  story  of  the  incarnation  of  God  becomes 
a  part.  It  '^professes  to  be  God's  own  record 
of  the  leading  facts  in  the  course  and  prog- 
ress of  the  moral  government  of  our  world 
through  successive  ages.''  The  Book  no- 
where limits  its  inspiration  to  its  doctrinal 
parts.  In  the  nature  of  things  there  can  be 
no  more  evidence  to  establish  the  claim  of  in- 
spiration in  regard  to  doctrines,  than  in  re- 
gard to  facts.  ^'Scripture  is  not  only  the 
record,"  as  Adolf  Saphir  shows,  ^'but  it  is 
the  inspired  record  of  revelation."  And 
being  inspired  it  must  give  us  a  faithful  ac- 
72 


to  a  Minimum 

count,  for  the  supernatural  inspiration  of 
falsehood  is  unthinkable.  ''None  but  the 
stupid  would  believe  in  a  God  who  made  mis- 
takes''  or  inspired  misrepresentations. 

If  it  is  not  an  inspired  record  of  facts,  and 
of  a  miraculous  revelation  of  truth,  it  is  cer- 
tainly a  most  stupendous  imposture. 

It  makes  one  very  important  distinction. 
While  it  asserts,  ''All  Scripture  is  given  by 
inspiration  of  God, ' '  it  does  not  claim  that  all 
Scripture  is  revelation. 

It  is  a  revelation,  so  far  as  it  is  a  disclos- 
ure of  such  things  as  truths  or  events  or  of 
persons,  as  of  Christ  after  His  resurrection, 
made  by  God  through  supernatural  agencies. 
Paul  evidently  looked  upon  the  revelation  of 
the  Gospel  that  came  to  him  in  that  way,  for 
he  certified  to  the  Galatians  that  he  had  not 
received  it  of  man,  nor  was  he  taught  it,  but 
by  the  revelation  of  Jesus  Christ.  His  Gos- 
pel was  not  to  him  in  any  sense  a  "Pauline 
development.'^  If  evolution  is  God's  invari- 
able manner  of  revelation,  Paul  was  griev- 
73 


Reducing  the  Supernatural 

OTisly  mistaken.  If  George  Adam  Smith,  as 
an  evolution  critic,  is  correct  when  he  claims 
that  Revelation  is  always  progressive— i.  e., 
a  gradual,  continuous  unveiling  of  truth— 
Paul  was  wrong  again,  for  the  context  shows 
that  he  thought  the  Gospel  as  a  revelation 
was  complete. 

Indeed,  to-day's  Gospel  must  be  a  new 
Gospel,  being  the  product  of  a  development 
process  covering  almost  twenty  centuries.  If 
so,  what  meaning  is  there  in  the  present-time 
cry,  ^'Back  to  Christ  f 

But  Christian  truth,  in  a  very  essential 
sense,  is  not,  and  can  not  now  be,  a  progress- 
ive revelation.  As  a  revelation,  it  is  full 
and  finished. 

The  fundamental  principles  and  truths  of 
religion  are  as  unchangeable  and  permanent 
as  the  forces  of  nature.  The  Gospel  of  Christ 
contains  all  these  permanents.  He  revealed 
not  only  truths,  but  the  truth.  Men  may  ad- 
vance in  their  conceptions  of  truth,  but  what- 
ever progress  they  make  must  necessarily  be 
74 


to  a  Minimum 

within  the  bounds  of  the  all-comprehensive 
written  Gospel  record.  Whatever  goes  be- 
yond it  or  is  added  to  it  is  error.  Though 
Paul  himself,  or  an  angel  from  heaven,  or 
even  a  higher  critic,  should  profess  to  give 
me  a  further  revelation  of  the  Gospel,  I  would 
not  receive  it,  but  would  be  compelled  by 
Scripture  to  consider  him  ^  ^  accursed. ' ' 

All  Scripture,  however,  is  not  a  revela- 
tion, but  is  all ' '  given  by  inspiration  of  God. ' ' 
God  inspired  the  writers.  ^ '  Holy  men  of  God 
spake,''  Peter  tells  us,  ^^as  they  were  moved 
by  the  Holy  Ghost."  They  realized  some- 
thing more  than  the  ' '  breath  of  God  in  their 
souls. ' '  The  Divine  voice  that  spoke  to  Jere- 
miah was  mandatory.  It  said,  ^^  Write  thee 
all  the  words  that  I  have  spoken  unto  thee  in 
a  book.''  They  were  evidently  not  only  ani- 
mated, illuminated,  and  guided  by  God,  but 
also  controlled,  so  that  whether  they  were 
giving  an  account  of  a  revelation  or  other 
matters,  the  narratives  they  penned  are 
really  trustworthy,  even  when  they  record 
75 


Reducing  the  Supernatural 

the  false  views  or  bad  deeds  of  evil  men  or 
spirits,  as  well  as  the  words  and  deeds  of 
Jesus  Christ. 

It  is  this  special  controlling  influence  of 
God,  who  is  the  real  author  of  the  Bible,  upon 
the  sacred  penman  that  makes  the  document- 
ary evidence  of  His  supreme  revelation  so 
sufficient  and  accurate,  and  consequently 
such  a  firm  historical  foundation  for  Chris- 
tian faith. 

It  is  very  evident  from  Christ's  own 
words  that  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament 
were  inspired,  and  Divinely  informed  regard- 
ing things  past,  present,  and  future.  He  in- 
structed His  disciples  not  to  prepare  their 
defenses  when  arraigned  before  rulers  as  to 
the  matter  or  manner.  He  promised  that 
what  they  should  say,  and  how  they  should 
say  it,  would  be  given  them,  and  that  the 
one  that  should  really  '^ speak"  would  not 
be  themselves,  but  the  Spirit  of  their 
^^ Father."  "We  have  the  record  of  several 
of  their  forsenic  efforts,  and  they  are  largely 
76 


to  a  Minimum 

historical  and  argumentative.  So  we  see  that 
according  to  the  promise  God  aided  them  as 
to  historical  facts— their  arrangement  and 
delivery.  He  assured  them  that  the  same 
Spirit  would  bring  all  things  to  their  remem- 
brance ''whatsoever"  He  had  ''said"  unto 
them,  which  included  reasonings,  facts,  and 
truths.  Why?  So  that  an  accurate  record 
might  be  made.  Such  could  not  have  been 
made  after  the  lapse  of  so  many  years  by 
men  entirely  dependent  upon  their  own  men- 
tal powers.  It  is  because  we  believe  that  that 
promise  was  fulfilled,  that  we  have  absolute 
confidence  in  the  reports  they  made  of  what 
He  said  and  did.  He  clearly  promised  them 
the  gift  of  prescience.  He  said,  "He  will 
show  you  things  to  come."*  It  is  very  plain 
that  the  inspiring  Spirit  was  to  reveal  facts 
to  them,  and  help  them  in  arranging  facts  in 
their  minds,  their  reasonings,  and  delivery, 
and  in  recalling  the  past,  the  understanding 
of  the  present,  and  in  looking  into  the  future. 

*Johnxvl,  13. 

77 


Reducing  the  Supernatural 

If  there  were  no  other  Scriptural  proofs  than 
these,  the  theories  of  the  critics  respecting 
inspiration  and  revelation,  as  well  as  proph- 
ecy, would  fall  to  the  ground. 

But  the  voice  of  God,  through  His  Son 
and  the  holy  writers  of  the  Sacred  Oracles, 
was  and  is  a  distinctive  voice  of  authority, 
such  as  no  man  can  now  claim,  any  more  than 
he  can  claim  the  power  of  healing,  raising  the 
dead,  casting  out  devils,  the  gift  of  tongues 
or  the  authority  of  an  apostle.  ^'The  things 
that  I  write  unto  you  are  the  commandments 
of  the  Lord, ' '  says  Paul.  Does  any  reputable 
teacher  make  any  such  claim  nowadays? 
Truth  requires  something  more  than  its  own 
intrinsic  worth  or  sweet  reasonableness  to 

Command 
men.  A  parent's  or  a  teacher's  or  a  govern- 
ment's communications  often  need  and  have 
a  force  beyond  what  they  may  have  in  them- 
selves. The  Bible  is  authoritative  in  itself, 
and  has  an  influence  over  the  minds  of  men 
78 


to  a  Minimum 

because  of  their  belief  in  its  Divine  author- 
ship, which  it  could  not  have  if  it  were  such 
as  the  higher  critics  represent  it  to  be. 

Let  us  now  see  what  the  results  are  on  the 
supernatural  phenomena  of  the  Bible  when 
the  critics  use  their  peculiar  theories  of  in- 
spiration in  connection  with  their  destructive 
methods. 

The  compiler  of  the  Pentateuch,  living,  as 
they  claim,  about  ten  centuries  after  Moses, 
had  as  his  only  material  ^^four  documents 
dated  respectively  six,  eight,  and  ten  cen- 
turies after  the  exodus, ''  together  with  per- 
haps some  traditions  and  written  scraps ;  and 
neither  he  nor  the  authors  of  the  original 
documents,  it  is  claimed,  had  any  aid  from 
God  as  to  the  accumulation  of  the  data  or  its 
use,  but  had  to  depend  wholly  upon  human 
sources  of  knowledge,  including,  of  course, 
their  well-developed  ^^  historical  imagina- 
tion" in  writing  all  this  history,  which  covers 
all  the  centuries  from  '^In  the  beginning'' 
until  the  close  of  Moses'  life. 
79 


Reducing  the  Supernatural 

The  history  includes  civil  and  religions 
laws,  the  marvelous  doings  of  God  in  nature, 
and  His  manifestations  of  Himself  to  men, 
as  well  as  wonderful  deliverances,  revela- 
tions, prophecies,  and  miracles.  The  super- 
natural is  everywhere  apparent,  and  is  not 
only  perceived,  but  received  by  the  reader  as 
real  as  long  as  he  believes  that  Moses,  who 
was  an  observer  of  many  of  its  miraculous 
scenes,  wrote  it,  and  that  he  was  aided  and 
guided  by  God  in  all  he  did ;  but  the  moment 
he  takes  it  as  uninspired  narrative,  written 
ages  after  the  scenes  are  supposed  to  have 
occurred,  and  by  unknown  men  who  had  no 
reliable  historical  matter  whatever,  nor  any 
revelation  of  facts,  the  prophecies,  miracles, 
deliverances,  and  theophanies  all  fade  out 
as  objective  facts,  as  they  would  out  of  any 
other  form  of  saga  or  a  modern  work  of  the 
imagination.  The  same  thing  is  true  of  the 
Books  of  Joshua,  Job,  Esther,  Kings,  Chron- 
icles, and  even  the  Gospels,  as  well  as  other 
80 


to  a  Minimum 

narratives  to  a  large  extent.  They  think  they 
eliminate  the  supernatural  from  Isaiah 
largely,  by  simply  changing  prophecy  into 
history;  from  Daniel,  by  transforming  his- 
tory and  prophecy  into  fiction;  and  from 
Jonah,  by  resolving  the  whole  book  into  an 
allegory. 

No  reasonable  person  would  believe  in 
miraculous  events  related  in  a  record  which 
they  have  re-made  in  that  way.  Professor 
H.  C.  Sheldon,  of  Boston  University  School 
of  Theology,  sees  this,  and  uses  it  to  get  rid 
of  the  miracles.  He  says:  *^As  to  the  testi- 
mony for  the  miracles  which  led  up  to  and 
accompanied  the  Exodus,  the  uncertain  date 
of  various  portions  of  the  Pentateuch  hin- 
ders a  confident  appeal  to  eye-witnesses. 
.  .  .  For  the  later  miracles  of  the  Old 
Testament  somewhat  less  can  be  said.  ,  .  . 
Instead,  therefore,  of  rendering  any  positive 
support  to  Biblical  authority,  they  need 
rather  to  be  supported  by  that  authority,  if 
6  81 


Reducing  the  Supernatural 

they  are  to  hold  an  indubitable  place  in  the 
category  of  facts/**  Yet  he  and  others  seek 
to  impress  us  with  their  great  respect  for 
these  books,  as  containing  a  wonderful  body 
of  **  Divine  Bevelation. '  *  Joseph  Parker 
said :  *  *  The  greater  havoc  some  of  the  higher 
critics  make  in  the  structural  parts  of  the 
Bible,  the  more  vehemently  they  exalt  the 
supernatural/*  But  they  can  not  throw  the 
miraculous  out  of  any  of  these  books  in  their 
way,  and  still  in  any  true  sense  hold  it  to  be 
inspired  or  reasonable  fiction ;  for  if  the  sup- 
posed incidents  are  too  ^  ^  grotesque  * '  or  *  ^  stu- 
pendous * '  to  be  probable  in  actual  history,  as 
they  claim  in  many  instances,  they  can  have 
no  place  in  a  sober  work  of  the  imagination. 
It  is  fully  as  immoral  to  be  false  to  reality  in 
serious  fiction,  as  to  fact  in  history. 

The  objection  to  much  of  this  is  not  that 
inspired  Scripture  can  not  be  in  the  form  of 
fiction,  but  that  it  is  an  attempt  to  do  away 
with  the  supernatural;  that  it  represents  as 

♦System  of  Christian  Doctrine,  p.  112. 

82 


to  a  Minimum 

fiction  what  purports  to  be  historical;  and 
that  it  represents  as  inspired  fiction  what  is 
too  unusual,  too  extravagant,  or  too  gro- 
tesque to  be  probable  narrative. 

To  make  the  matter  doubly  sure,  they 
speak  of  a  Scriptural  miracle  as  an  unusual 
event  occurring  through  an  unknown  law; 
and  of  the  miracles  wrought  in  modern  hos- 
pitals as  greater  than  Christ's  cures.  Each 
miracle,  they  say,  is  to  be  judged  in  the  light 
of  its  own  character  and  historical  setting, 
and  not  to  be  accepted  because  of  its  place  in 
the  Sacred  Record.  Professor  William 
North  Rice,  of  Wesleyan  University,  is  gen- 
erous enough  to  admit  that  '^Some  miracles 
can  be  very  confidently  accepted. ' '  He  adds, 
however,  ^^A  critical  examination  of  others 
seems  to  require  their  rejection  as  unhistor- 
ical."*  One  is  naturally  anxious  to  know 
what  inerrant  canons  of  credibility  he  uses 
in  his  examinations.  Further  on  he  says: 
'^The  supernatural  can  mean  no  more  than 


♦The  Christian  Religion  in  an  Age  of  Science,  p.  379. 

83 


Reducing  the  Supernatural 

the  111100111111011  or  unusual  in  a  universe  which 
is  all  Divine.  The  truth  of  the  Divine  imma- 
nence well-nigh  makes  void  the  distinction 
of  natural  and  supernatural  in  the  activities 
of  God  in  the  physical  universe."*  If  the 
doctrine  of  the  latter  quotation  is  not  pan- 
theism, it  is  certainly  its  next-door  neighbor. 
It  is  all  the  teaching  of  so-called  conservative 
criticism,  and  is  an  attempt  to  throw  out  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures  the  miraculous  and  the 
other  supernatural  phenomena  by  destroying 
the  distinction  that  exists  between  G-od's 
mediate  and  immediate  modes  of  operation 
in  the  external  and  the  subjective  world. 
The  expression,  ^^ Divine  Immanence,"  so 
often  used,  is  supposed  to  have  a  dazzling 
effect  on  immature  minds. 

They  represent  the  prophet  as  if  he  were 
a  politico-religious  preacher  of  our  day  who 
had  a  special  message  for  his  own  times 
—merely  a  f orthteller,  not  a  foreteller,  as  his 


*Tho  Christian  Religion  in  an  Age  of  Science,  p. 

84 


to  a  Minimum 

jiredictions  did  not  refer  to  future  events,  but 
to  tendencies  and  the  ideal  world. 

We  readily  see  that  these  so-called  super- 
naturalistic  critics,  while  not  openly  attack- 
ing miracles,  prophecies,  or  theophanies, 
nevertheless  provide  for  their  disappear- 
ance. They  simply  put  the  Bible  into  their 
critical  sieve,  and  then  what  is  supernatural 
drops  out  of  its  own  weight. 

^^I  affirm  that  any  man  who  can  juggle 
these  facts  (miracles)  out  of  the  Bible, '^  says 
Bishop  H.  W.  Warren,  ^^can  juggle  all  facts 
and  truths  out  of  the  Bible. ' '  The  critics  do 
not  call  it  '^juggling."  They  call  it  ^'schol- 
arly research,''  or  '^ scientific  criticism.'' 

It  is  very  evident,  however,  that  under 
their  Scriptural  manipulations  supernatural 
things  disappear,  or  wholly  change  their 
character.  The  ark  of  the  covenant,  for  in- 
stance, becomes  simply  a  superstition— an 
unsanctified  adaptation  of  the  Egyptian  itin- 
erant river  ship  box;  the  tabernacle  with  its 
85 


Reducing  the  Supernatural 

sacrifices  and  ceremonies,  a  priestly  inven- 
tion patterned  after  that  of  the  temple;  the 
brazen  serpent  a  relic  of  ^' totem  worship;'' 
the  laws  respecting  the  clean  and  unclean 
*^ taboo  customs''  and  Jonah's  gourd  **a 
magic  tree."  The  translation  of  Enoch  and 
Elijah,  the  call  of  Abraham,  Jacob's  dream, 
and  his  wrestling  at  the  brook,  Moses'  burn- 
ing bush  and  his  awful  interviews  with  God 
at  Sinai;  the  descending  fire  at  Carmel  and 
at  the  dedication  of  Solomon's  Temple;  and 
scores  of  other  such  events  are  resolved  into 
myths,  and  the  stories  relating  to  Gideon, 
Samson,  Goliath,  the  battle  of  Bethhoron,  and 
hosts  of  others  into  legends.  The  story  of 
Joseph,  with  its  account  of  his  supernatural 
resolving  of  dreams  and  his  foretellings  be- 
comes simply  an  imitation  of  the  old  Egyp- 
tian tale  of  the  '^Two  Brothers."  The  ful- 
fillment of  prophecy  claimed  in  the  New 
Testament  proves  not  to  have  been  such  at 
all,  but  utterances  from  the  Old  Testament 
read  into  the  New  by  Christ  and  His  follow- 
86 


to  a  Minimum 

ers  through  a  misapprehension  (or,  to  bolster 
up  their  claims,)  which  existed  then  and  until 
these  days  in  the  minds  of  all  since  then,  but 
infidels  and  our  up-to-date  critics,  as  to  the 
real  character  of  the  sayings  of  the  old 
prophets,  singers,  and  sages.  It  turns  out, 
according  to  Dr.  Peters,  that  *Hhe  British 
belief  in  the  return  of  an  Arthur,  or  the  Ger- 
man hope  of  the  reappearance  of  a  Charle- 
magne or  a  Frederick  Barbarossa,  was  in 
origin  the  same  as  the  Israelitish  expectation 
of  the  second  David,"*  and  consequently 
those  delusive  hopes  were  as  much  inspired 
as  the  Messianic  hope  of  Israel. 

So  we  see  that,  instead  of  accepting  what 
the  Bible  claims  as  to  its  own  inspiration  and 
the  supernatural  character  of  its  truths, 
events,  and  institutions,  these  professedly 
supernaturalistic  critics  assume  theories  and 
accept  results  which  substantially  harmonize 
with  the  rationalistic  theories  and  principles 
of  their  system,  all  of  which  reduce  the  Bible 

♦The  Old  Testament  and  the  New  Scholarship,  p.  187. 

87 


Reducing  the  Supernatural 

almost,  if  not  altogether,  to  a  naturalistic 
basis.  The  late  Professor  W.  H.  Green,  of 
Princeton,  saw  this,  and  held  that  the  most 
effective  mode  of  banishing  the  supernatural 
from  the  Bible  is  by  subjecting  it  to  processes 
of  the  higher  criticism.*  Is  it  any  wonder 
that  so  many  look  upon  the  system  as  Satan's 
masterpiece? 

Kenotism. 

In  addition  to  subjecting  the  Bible  to 
these  drastic  processes,  these  critics,  in  order 
to  destroy  the  force  of  Christ's  indorsement 
of  the  Old  Testament  and  for  other  reasons, 
diminish  the  Divine  in  Him,  with  respect  to 
His  attributes,  away  beyond  what  many  Uni- 
tarians claim. 

These  theorists  are  well  aware  that  when 
Christ  confirmed  what  they  call  the  tradi- 
tional view  of  the  Old  Testament  He  flatly 
contradicted  their  view  of  the  same,  and  in 
casting  about  for  some  way  of  destroying 
His  authority  as  a  teacher  in  this  respect 

♦The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch,  p.  82. 

88 


to  a  Minimum 

they  have  plunged  into  the  depths  of  the  Ke- 
notic  theory,  which  is  a  bottomless  German 
Christological  speculation.  According  to 
this  metaphysical  subtility  Christ  so  com- 
pletely emptied  Himself  of  His  Divine  nature 
as  to  become  as  ignorant  of  common  matters, 
such  as  science,  history,  and  Scripture,  as 
His  contemporaries. 

In  the  Appendix  of  a  book*  published  a 
short  time  ago  we  find  statements  made  on 
this  subject  by  the  presidents  of  various 
Methodist  educational  institutions,  some  ox 
which  show  us  how  far  men  of  intelligence 
and  ability  may  be  drawn  away  from  their  ra- 
tional and  doctrinal  moorings  by  committing 
themselves  to  this  subtle,  complex,  critical 
system  of  error.  One  of  them  says : ' '  It  is  evi- 
dent that  there  must  have  been  such  a  limita- 
tion of  knowledge  on  Christ's  part  as  put  Him 
essentially  under  the  conditions  of  ordinary 
men;"  and  '^It  is  not  necessary  to  suppose 
that  He  knew  aught  of  the  chemistry  of  fer- 

*  Terry,  Moses  and  the  Prophets. 


Reducing  the  Supernatural 

mentation. ' '  Another  doubts  as  to  *  ^  whether 
Christ's  knowledge  extended  to  exact  scien- 
tific and  historical  detail/'  and  ^^ whether  He 
knew  the  historical  process  of  the  compo- 
sition of  the  Biblical  writings."  A  third, 
evidently  failing  to  see  that  Christ  was  refer- 
ring to  ceremonial  and  spiritual,  and  not  to 
physical  defilement,  after  quoting  Christ's 
words,  *^Not  that  which  goeth  into  a  man 
defileth  him,"  boldly  remarks,  **This  is  not 
true;  it  may  and  often  does  poison  the 
blood." 

One  seeks  to  justify  all  this  by  saying, 
'^  Philosophy  teaches  that  self -limitation  does 
not  destroy  God. ' ' 

Philosophy  is  not  a  very  safe  teacher 
when  dealing  with  the  being  or  revelation  of 
God;  but  does  it  teach  that?  By  no  means, 
in  the  sense  the  writer  intends.  Philosophy 
teaches  us  that  God  can  not  limit  His  being 
or  powers.  To  do  so  would  be  self-mutila- 
tion—suicide. He  can  not  limit  His  omnipo- 
tence or  knowledge,  but  His  use  of  these  at- 
90 


to  a  Minimum 

tributes;  and  He  can  no  more  limit  His  om- 
niscience tlian  His  omnipotence  or  imma- 
nence. While  Christ  was  human  He  was  God. 
He  evidently  set  up  His  claim  to  be  such 
when  He  said,  ''I  and  the  Father  are  one."* 
The  Jews  so  understood  Him,  for  they  took 
up  stones  to  stone  Him,  and  in  wrath  said, 
''Thou  being  a  man  makest  Thyself  God." 
But  the  Divine  in  Him  did  not  lessen  or  para- 
lyze the  human,  nor  did  the  human  lessen  or 
paralyze  the  Divine.  We  have  no  reason  to 
believe  that  He  emptied  Himself  any  more 
of  His  Divine  resources  than  He  did  of  His 
human  resources.  Men  get  themselves  into 
endless  confusion  by  attempting  to  distin- 
guish between  the  human  and  the  Divine  in 
His  personality.  We  know  the  ''Word  was 
made  flesh,"  but  who  can  tell  where  the  one 
nature  ends  or  the  other  begins?  And  why 
should  we  in  forming  a  conception  of  Christ 
try  to  diminish  the  Divine  any  more  than  the 
human  nature? 


♦John  X,  80. 

91 


Reducing  the  Supernatural 

Like  men  and  God  He  did  not  always  use 
all  His  resources.  He  limited  Himself  in 
speech  to  what  His  Father  wished  Him  to 
say ;  but  He  no  more  reduced  His  intelligence 
thereby,  than  He  reduced  His  omnipotence 
when  He  refused  to  change  a  stone  into  a  loaf 
of  bread.  Infinite  love  welled  up  constantly 
in  His  soul;  infinite  power  attended  His 
every  word  and  touch;  infinite  intelligence 
lay  behind  all  His  thought  and  speech.  To 
the  Jews  who  wondered  at  His  untutored 
knowledge  He  said  in  explanation,  ^^My 
teaching  is  not  Mine,  but  His  that  sent  Me.''* 

If  He  made  mistakes  they  were  not  His 
OAvn.  It  would  be  strange  if  it  should  appear 
that  He  had  the  mind  of  God,  and  yet  a  mind 
cabined  and  confined  within  the  bounds  of 
human  ignorance  and  illiteracy;  that  He 
could  make  a  few  loaves  feed  a  multitude,  and 
change  water  into  wine,  but  did  not  know 
^'the  chemistry  of  fermentation;"  that  He 
could  send  the  warm  blood  pulsating  through 


♦Johnvli,16  (R.  v.). 

92 


to  a  Minimum 

a  dead  raan^s  veins  and  arteries,  but  did  not 
know  that  the  blood  circulated,  or  that  cer- 
tain foods  or  drinks  '^ poison  the  blood;" 
that  He  could  cure  all  manner  of  diseases, 
but  did  not  know  His  own  physiology;  that 
He  could  walk  on  water,  but  did  not  know  the 
force  of  gravitation  He  overcame;  that  He 
should  make  the  world,  and  not  know  its  sci- 
ence ;  that  He  was  conscious  of  living  before 
Abraham,  and  could  recognize  Moses  and 
Elijah  on  the  Mount,  and  not  know  the  his- 
tory of  which  they  formed  a  part ;  and  that 
He  could  reveal  the  new  Scriptures,  yet  did 
not  know  the  true  character  or  the  manner 
of  the  composition  of  the  old  Scriptures 
which  He  Himself  inspired,  taught,  and  con- 
firmed. If  He  was  mistaken  through  igno- 
rance in  ascribing  the  110th  Psalm  to  David, 
what  will  we  do  with  His  statement  that 
David  wrote  it  ''by  the  Holy  Ghost,''  and 
with  His  claim  that  it  contained  a  prophecy 
of  His  own  dual  nature?  If  He  was  mistaken 
in  regard  to  the  authorship  of  the  psalm  and 
93 


Reducing  the  Supernatural 

its  prophecy,  may  He  not  have  been  mistaken 
in  regard  to  His  own  Sonship  and  His  views 
of  truth  in  general?  And  if  these  modern 
scholars  are  able  to  correct  His  views  of  na- 
ture, history,  and  the  Old  Testament  by  their 
scientific  and  critical  methods,  may  they  not 
be  able  by  the  same  means  to  correct  His 
ethical  code  and  His  theology? 

It  is  difficult  to  know  what  these  critics 
want  us  to  think  He  was,  or  how  far  they 
count  Him  their  Master.  Surely  they  do  not 
wish  us  to  regard  Him  as  a  Divine,  walking 
somnambulist,  clairvoyant,  soothsayer,  or 
prestidigitator!  or  to  think  that  if  He  were 
on  earth  to-day,  as  He  was  then,  that  it  would 
be  -necessary  for  Him  to  go  to  them  to  school ! 

If  not  these  things,  then  what  1  It  is  sur- 
prising that  intelligent  men  professing  to  be 
Christians  should  raise  such  questions.  Sir 
William  Dawson  said:  ^^To  me,  as  a  student 
for  fifty  years  of  nature,  of  man,  and  of  the 
Bible,  such  discussions  seem  most  frivolous, 
since  our  Lord's  knowledge,  as  we  have  it  in 
94 


to  a  Minimum 

His  reported  discourses,  is  altogether  above 
and  beyond  our  science  and  philosophy;  tran- 
scending them  as  much  as  the  vision  of  an 
astronomer  armed  with  one  of  the  great  tele- 
scopes of  our  times  transcends  the  unaided 
vision  of  a  gnat. ' '  But  I  wish  to  suggest  here 
that  none  of  us  knows  how  much  a  gnat 
thinks  he  knows.  ^^Any  theory  which  as- 
sumes that  God  lays  aside  His  omnipotence, 
omniscience,  and  omnipresence,  and  becomes 
feeble,  ignorant,  and  circumscribed  as  an  in- 
fant,^' said  Dr.  Hodge,  of  Princeton,  '^con- 
tradicts the  first  principles  of  all  religion, 
and,  if  it  be  pardonable  to  say  so,  shocks  the 
common  sense  of  men. ' '  Dr.  H.  W.  Peck  ex- 
presses the  views  of  many  when  he  says ; ' '  To 
write  about  the  Infinite  One  being  'poten- 
tially' possessed  of  all  His  attributes,  and 
not  'actually'  so,  is  the  veriest  nonsense.'' 

"A  sincere  and  intelligent  belief  in  the 

Divinity  of  Jesus  Christ, ' '  said  the  late  Canon 

Liddon,    "obliges  us  to  believe  that  Jesus 

Christ,    as    a   teacher   is    infallible.     .    .    . 

95 


Reducing  the  Supernatural 

The  man  who  sincerely  believes  that  Jesus 
Christ  is  God  will  not  doubt  that  His  every 
word  standeth  sure,  and  that  whatever  has 
been  sealed  by  His  supreme  authority  is  in- 
dependent of  and  unassailable  by  the  judg- 
ment of  His  creatures  respecting  it."  Prin- 
cipal Sheraton  asks:  ^'Are  we  not  'bound' 
as  Bishop  Stubbs  has  said  'to  accept  the  lan- 
guage of  our  Lord  in  reference  to  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures  as  beyond  appeal!'  " 
We  certainly  are,  and  only  feeble  souls 
can  be  satisfied  with  these  modern  teach- 
ings concerning  our  Lord's  Kenosis.  The 
true  Christian  soul  wants  a  Christ  who 
embodies,  even  in  the  days  of  His  humil- 
iation, not  only  two  or  three  of  God's 
attributes,  or  all  of  them  in  a  limited 
degree,  but  a  Christ  in  whom  the  whole 
circle  of  Divine  perfections  shines.  It 
is  not  to  be  supposed  that  these  critics  them- 
selves would  for  a  moment  indulge  these 
views  if  it  were  not  that  they  are  logically 
forced  either  to  allow  that  Christ  knowingly 
96 


to  a  Minimum 

misled  His  hearers  in  respect  to  the  nature  of 
the  Old  Testament,  or  to  renounce  their 
boasted  scientific  method. 

They  hold  fast  to  their  method,  and  as  we 
have  seen  have  been  led  to  reduce  the  super- 
natural to  a  minimum  in  inspiration,  reve- 
lation, miracle,  and  prophecy;  and  as  a  last 
step  to  be  willing  to  take  away  much  of  the 
supernatural  from  the  life  of  our  Lord,  and 
even  to  limit  or  diminish  in  Him  the  very  at- 
tributes of  Deity. 


Destroying  the 
Foundations 


"  If   the    foundations   be   destroyed  what  can   the 
righteous  do?"— David. 


Destroying  the 
Foundations 

There  are  two  methods  of  attack  which 
men  principally  employ.  The  one  is  to  strike 
at  the  conclusion  of  an  argument,  the  other 
at  the  reasoning;  the  one  to  seek  to  break 
down  the  testimony  of  a  witness,  the  other 
to  break  down  the  witness  himself;  the  one 
to  destroy  the  crew  and  cargo,  the  other  to 
scuttle  the  ship;  the  one  to  fight  the  garrison, 
the  other  to  batter  down  or  undermine  the 
walls;  the  one  to  attack  the  substance  of  re- 
vealed truth  in  the  Bible,  the  other  to  attack 
the  Bible  itself  as  a  record  and  a  book  con- 
taining that  substance  of  revealed  truth. 

Tom  Paine,  Voltaire,  and  other  infidels 

sought  by  both  methods  to  destroy  the  Holy 

Scriptures.    Porphyry  of  the  third  century, 

a  neo-Platonist,  a  very  adroit  and  able  an- 

101 


Destroying  the 

tagonist  of  Christianity,  did  not  deny  tlie 
truth  in  the  Bible,  but  the  reliability  of  the 
record.  The  early  Socinians,  who  like  these 
evangelical  higher  critics  claimed  to  be  su- 
pernaturalists,  and  professed  to  believe  that 
the  body  of  truth  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  was 
in  a  way  inspired,  but  that  the  record  was  not 
trustworthy,  like  Porphyry  sought  to  weaken, 
disparage,  and  discredit  the  human  that  is 
interwoven  with  the  Divine  in  the  Bible,  just 
as  Satan  tried  in  the  wilderness  to  overcome 
the  Divine  nature  in  Christ  through  His  hu- 
man nature. 

This  seems  to  be  the  popular  method  of 
unbelief  at  the  present  time.  It  praises  the 
ethical  teachings  of  the  Bible,  makes  no 
bold  denial  of  its  doctrines,  and  goes  often  in 
raptures  over  the  ''Divine  Library''  and  the 
''remarkable  revelation"  it  cont^iins,  but  at 
the  same  time  through  higher  criticism  it  is 
making  a  most  vigorous  effort  to  break  the 
vessel  that  holds  the  Divine  treasure ;  to  spoil 
the  logical  force;  to  discredit  the  witness;  to 
102 


Foundations 

scuttle  the  ship;  to  undermine  the  walls;  in 
other  words,  to  destroy  men^s  faith  in  the 
trustworthiness  of  the  Biblical  record,  which 
is  the  only  historical  foundation  we  have  for 
our  belief  in  Christ  and  Christianity. 

The  men  who  have  been  busy  hammering, 
scuttling,  sapping  and  mining,  and  discredit- 
ing seem  well  pleased  with  the  damage  they 
have  wrought,  and  point  with  evident  pride 
to  what  they  think  are  great  rents  and  cleav- 
ages in  the  structural  portions  of  the  Bible, 
even  holding  with  Tom  Paine  that  much  of 
it  was  ^'manufactured/'  Professor  H.  G. 
Mitchell,  of  Boston  University  School  of  The- 
ology, is  bold  enough  to  say:  "They,''  refer- 
ring to  his  reasonings,  ''make  it  impossible 
for  an  intelligent  student  to  accept  the  Bib- 
lical account  as  a  correct  record."  Cer- 
tainly orthodox  students  must  fully  realize 
their  want  of  intelligence  in  his  classes. 
Professor  C.  W.  Eishell,  of  the  same  Meth- 
odist school,  is  so  impressed  with  the  Bible's 
errant  character  that  he  says,  "So  far  from 
103 


Destroying  the 

asserting  the  infallibility  of  tlie  Old  Testa- 
ment we  should  strongly  emphasize  the  con- 
trary/'* According  to  this  we  should  reverse 
our  pulpit  utterances,  and  instead  of  claim- 
ing **we  have  a  sure  word  of  prophecy '*  and 
^'have  not  followed  cunningly  devised 
fables/'  we  should  assert  the  ''fallibility  of 
the  Old  Testament, ' '  and  make  our  assertion 
not  only  emphatic,  but  ' '  strongly  emphatic. ' ' 
He  is  not  so  sure  about  the  fallibility  of  the 
New  Testament,  but  suggests:  ''We  need  not 
assert  nor  need  we  deny  error  in  the  New 
Testament,  "f  One  would  suppose  from  this 
that  the  errancy  or  inerrancy  of  the  Scrip- 
tures is  a  matter  of  little  importance.  The 
errancy  to  which  critics  refer  is  far  otherwise. 
It  is  that  which  naturally  inheres  in  works 
written  by  men  without  Divine  revelation 
of  facts  or  any  really  reliable  historical  data. 
According  to  the  higher  critics,  the  Bible,  as 
we  have  already  shown,  is  made  up  largely 
of  myths  and  legends  and  traditions  and  of 


'Foundations  of  the  Christian  Faith,  p.  476.        jrlbid,  483. 

104 


Foundations 

speeches  and  various  utterances  attributed 
to  Moses,  Joshua,  David,  Mary,  Elizabeth, 
or  others,  which  were  in  fact  composed  by 
persons  far  removed  from  the  supposed  au- 
thors, often  by  many  centuries— much  as 
''Spartacus  to  the  Gladiators''  was  written 
by  our  versatile  American.  The  fallibility 
of  such  a  book  is  very  similar  to  the  fallibility 
of  Dumas '  ^  ^  Four  Musketeers. ' ' 

Now  I  maintain  that  you  can  not  perma- 
nently rest  a  system  of  religion,  such  as 
Christianity,  on  such  historical  sand  or  ooze. 
The  mass  of  mankind  will  never  believe  that  a 
pure  morality  or  a  sane  theology  can  accom- 
pany or  be  the  fruitage  of  such  worthless  and 
deceptive  narrative.  If  our  Bible  is  not  ^^a 
correct  record"  of  persons,  incidents,  doc- 
trines, and  revelations,  we  are  building  our 
faith  on  what  Christ  warned  us  against— sand. 
God  never  fully  imbedded  Himself  in  hu- 
man thought  and  life  until  the  Divine  Word 
became  ^' flesh  and  bones,"  and  that  Word 
must  still  be  imbedded  in  real  substantial 
105 


Destroying  the 

facts  and  events,  and  the  Divine  must  still 
pervade,  glorify,  and  give  power  to  the  hu- 
man. As  long  as  Antaeus  held  firmly  to 
mother  earth,  Hercules  could  not  throw  him. 
When  he  lost  his  foothold  the  giant  could 
hurl  him  anywhere.  As  long  as  the  Biblical 
body  of  truth  is  imbedded  in  real  facts,  inter- 
woven with  thoroughly  reliable  historic 
events  which  the  reason  can  touch  and 
handle,  it  is  as  immovable  as  Gibraltar ;  once 
in  the  air,  lifted  from  its  old  foundations, 
it  would  be  as  easily  moved  about  and  tossed 
as  was  Antaeus. 

Professor  Eishell,  wishing  to  establish  a 
foundation  for  faith  that  is  not  historical, 
gives  us  the  following  higher  critical  dogma : 
^^The  infallibility  of  the  New  Testament  is 
not  essential  to  faith  in  the  truth  it  con- 
tains. ' ' 

This  is  a  very  deceptive  statement  for  a 

sane  man  can  not  have  faith  in  the  statements 

of  a  history  which  he  knows  to  be  unreliable. 

There  are  truths,  however,  such  as  God  is 

106 


Foundations 

a  Spirit  or  the  Golden  Rule,  which  to  some 
minds  may  need  no  trustworthy  historic 
setting.  They  are  self-evident.  But 
many  of  the  doctrines  of  our  religion,  such 
as  the  miraculous  conception  and  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus  Christ  and  the  Atonement,  are 
neither  abstract  nor  intuitive  truths ;  and  no 
matter  how  much  they  may  commend  them- 
selves to  our  minds  or  excite  our  religious 
emotions,  they  are  not  self-evident,  and  must 
be  supported  by  historical  proof.  These  doc- 
trines are  inseparably  interwoven  with  the 
whole  body  of  Biblical  narrative.  They  are 
not  only  connected  with  the  facts  of  the  his- 
tory, but  rest  upon  the  facts  and  in  many 
cases  grow  out  of  them. 

Can  you  disconnect  the  doctrine  of  the 
Atonement  from  the  facts  of  the  fall,  of  sin, 
and  Christ's  death  and  resurrection?  Is  it 
not  plain  that  if  Adam  was  a  myth  and  there 
was  no  fall,  there  was  no  sin  and  no  redemp- 
tion? If  you  shake  the  facts  you  shake  the 
doctrines,  and  you  destroy  the  force  of  all 
107 


Destroying  the 

Christ's  teachings  and  blur  the  picture  of 
His  ideal  life. 

So  we  see  that  if  the  Biblical  record  is  un- 
certain and  incorrect,  we  do  not  know  that 
we  have  a  proper  report  of  His  words,  or  a 
truthful  or  uncolored  description  of  His  life. 

But  says  one,  ^' Faith  is  not  belief  in  a 
book,  but  in  the  living  Christ. ' '  Well,  if  that 
should  be  admitted,  upon  what  does  that  be- 
lief in  the  living  Christ  first  rest  but  in  the 
record  God  has  given  us  of  His  Son?  If  we 
had  not  that  record,  all  our  knowledge  of 
Him  as  an  incarnation  would  be  traditional 
and  worthless,  and  nothing  is  more  certain 
than  that  if  that  written  record  which  we 
have  is  not  trustworthy  'Hhere  is  no  living 
Christ  to  trust  to,  and  Christianity  passes 
into  mist  and  goes  down  the  wind.'' 

Even  Briggs,  though  he  substantially  im- 
peaches these  truths  elsewhere,  recognizes 
ihis,  and  says:  ''To  impeach  the  historicity 
of  the  incarnation  and  the  resurrection  of 
our  Lord  destroys  the  Christian  religion.'' 
108 


Foundations 

That  is  precisely  what  liberal  orthodox 
higher  criticism  under  the  less  offensive  term 
of  newer  criticism  is  doing  at  the  present 
time— impeaching  the  historicity  of  the  New 
Testament. 

While  higher  criticism  has  been  busy  un- 
dermining men's  faith  in  the  Old  Testament, 
it  has  until  within  a  few  years,  as  a  general 
thing,  in  this  country  and  England  hesitated 
to  enter  the  domain  of  the  New,  and  has  been 
quieting  pious  fears  with  the  assurance  that 
the  methods  used  in  the  one  should  not  be 
applied  to  the  other.  One  can  not  understand 
why,  if  they  are  legitimate.  It  has,  however, 
thrown  off  all  reserve,  and  having  examined 
the  historical  framework  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, it  reports  that  the  structural  portions 
are  weak  and  comparatively  unstable,  and 
that  the  book  is  emphatically  fallible. 

"We  are  told  that  the  origin  of  the  Gospels 

and  other  portions  is  very  obscure,  and  that 

time  enough  elapsed  after  Christ's  death  and 

other  events  to  give  rise  to  many  myths, 

109 


Destroying  the 

legends,  and  false  traditions  before  they  were 
written. 

Canon  Cheyne,  a  most  distinguished  crit- 
ical authority  and  an  orthodox  Christian, 
having  demolished  the  historical  foundations 
of  the  Old  Testament,  has  entered  the  New 
Testament  field  and  applied  the  same  meth- 
ods. To  the  great  dismay  of  those  who  think 
that  higher  criticism  is  reverent  toward 
Christ  he,  in  the  Encyclopaedia  Biblica,  of 
which  he  is  an  editor,  some  time  ago  at- 
tempted to  show  Christ  to  be  merely  a 
prophet  and  teacher  and  such  stories  as 
those  of  the  nativity  to  be  '^edifying  tales.'' 
Dr.  John  P.  Peters  throws  grave  doubts  not 
only  over  the  ^^ miraculous  conception,''  but 
the  trustworthiness  of  large  portions  of  the 
entire  Bible. 

''It  is  altogether  probable,"  writes  the 
supposedly  orthodox  Professor  William 
North  Eice,  of  Wesleyan  University,  Mid- 
dletown,  ''that  legendary  elements,  in  con- 
siderably large  degree,  are  mingled  in  the 
110 


Foundations 

Old  Testament  history,  and  in  less  degree 
even  in  the  New  Testament  history.''* 

The  late  Professor  L.  L.  Paine,  of  Bangor 
Theological  Seminary,  also  supposedly  ortho- 
dox, in  his  book,  ^^A  Critical  History  of  the 
Evolution  of  Trinitarianism,"  sets  forth 
Jesus  as  ^'born  (as  to  father  as  well  as 
mother)  in  the  line  of  a  human  genealogy.'' 
In  speaking  of  the  Book  of  Acts,  he  says :  ^'It 
evidently  contains  quite  a  large  element  of 
legend. ' ' 

However  satisfactory  such  a  historical 
foundation— composed  of  truth  and  lies— 
may  be  for  the  Christian  faith  of  these  critics, 
who  seem  to  be  full  of  philosophical  subtil- 
ities  and  to  be  steeped  in' '  German  Idealism," 
or  for  their  unthinking,  credulous  followers, 
it  can  never  be  such  to  the  average,  intelli- 
gent, practical  man  of  sound  mind.  He  will 
either  repudiate  their  view  of  the  Bible,  or 
repudiate  the  Bible  itself. 

Dr.  Percy  Gardner,  of  Oxford,  however, 

♦Christian  Faith  in  an  Age  of  Science,  p.  374. 
Ill 


Destroying  the 

tells  us  that  while  he  finds  no  safe  foundation 
for  his  orthodox  faith  in  the  ''historic  facts'' 
of  the  New  Testament,  he  thinks  he  has, 
after  a  close  search,  covering  over  ^'thirty 
years,"  discovered  a  bed-rock  base  for  that 
faith  in  '^psychological  facts."*  It  is  a 
'^source  of  unmeasured  satisfaction"  to  him 
that  great  thinkers,  such  as  A.  Sabatier  of 
Paris,  Lipsius  of  Jena,  and  William  James 
of  Harvard,  as  well  as  himself,  have  made 
practically  the  same  discovery,  and  have  been 
able  to  shift  safely  their  Christian  faith  from 
its  old  resting-place  unto  this  new  psycho- 
logical foundation. 

Higher  Criticism  and  Christian  Science 
seem  to  be  in  close  sympathy.  The  one  is  be- 
coming as  independent  of  historic  facts  as 
the  other  is  of  all  material  facts.  I  am  afraid, 
however,  that  these  great  discoverers  will 
find  these  psychologic  facts  very  unsubstan- 
tial. If  so,  as  an  old  Puritan  writer  asks, 
^^What  shall  a  poore,  unlearned  Christian  do 

*  A  Historic  View  of  the  New  Testament,  pp.  8,  29,  86. 

112 


Foundations 

if  lie  lias  nothing  to  rest  his  poore  soul  on?" 
Even  Professor  C.  W.  Pearson,  of  Evanston, 
though  a  learned  higher  critic,  could  not  rest 
his  ^' poore  soul"  on  this  psychologic  base. 
When  to  his  mind  the  basal  facts  went,  his 
faith  went;  and  he  is  free  to  express  his 
amazement  that  his  associates  who,  he  sup- 
posed, had  lost  faith  in  the  historic  facts  of 
the  Bible  should  continue  to  profess  faith  in 
evangelical  religion.  It  happened  to  him  as 
to  most  men.  When  the  historical  founda- 
tions of  their  beliefs  give  way  their  doctrinal 
views  collapse  completely,  and  often  suddenly 
like  St.  Mark's  Campanile.  Our  evil  natural 
inclination  to  doubt  God  and  His  Word  is 
sure,  unless  resisted,  to  rush  us  ultimately 
into  utter  unbelief.  And  the  whole  tendency 
of  higher  criticism  is  in  that  direction.  It 
is  like  a  very  rapid  river.  You  must  either 
keep  out  of  the  current,  or  go  with  it.  In- 
deed, it  is  a  kind  of  a  skeptical  Biblical  to- 
boggan slide,  which  is  landing  thousands  in 
agnosticism,  or  at  best  rationalism. 
8  113 


Destroying  the 

There  are,  however,  theologians  preach- 
ing in  orthodox  pulpits  or  teaching  dogmatic 
theology  in  orthodox  theological  schools, 
whose  doctrinal  views  are  so  very  airy  and 
buoyant  that  they  seem  to  rest  in  the  mazy 
philosophic  atmosphere  of  our  day  without 
any  apparent  need  of  infallible  documentary 
support,  or  even  Gardner's  ^'psychologic 
base. ' '  One  of  these  says :  ' '  Easter  is  not  an 
event  confidence  in  which  must  rest  upon  a 
written  witness  in  venerable  documents.'' 
Internal  experimental  evidence  is  all  he 
needs.  Others  are  like  Professor  C.  E.  Hen- 
derson, Chaplain  of  Chicago  University, 
whose  faith  requires  nothing  in  particular  as 
a  foundation.  He  says  that  it  does  not  mat- 
ter what  becomes  of  any  particular  state- 
ment of  historical  facts  in  the  Bible ;  that  that 
does  not  affect  his  faith  a  particle.  His  is 
surely  uberrima  fides.  Professor  Borden  P. 
Bowne,  of  Boston  University,  appears,  how- 
ever, to  have  a  more  remarkable  ^'spiritual 
conception  of  Christianity"  than  any  of 
114 


Foundations 

these.  He  sees  not  only  no  need  of  historical 
facts  or  a  psychologic  base,  but  even  of  belief 
in  anything,  ''in  order  to  be  saved."  Here 
are  his  words:  ''Finally  the  desire  for  an  ab- 
solute standard  and  authority  sometimes 
rests  on  the  fancy  that  there  is  something 
which  we  must  believe  or  do,  in  order  to  be 
saved.  But  such  a  notion  is  non-existent  for 
one  who  has  reached  a  spiritual  conception 
of  Christianity." 

According  to  this,  Jesus  Christ  had  a  very 
low  "spiritual  conception  of  Christianity," 
for  He  said:  "He  that  believeth  not  is  con- 
demned already,  because  he  believeth  not  in 
the  name  of  the  only  begotten  Son  of  God."* 

These  philosophical  critics,  advertised  as 
"defenders  of  the  faith,"  are  now  endeavor- 
ing to  show  "the  compatibility  of  a  theoret- 
ical skepticism  with  a  practical  faith."  If 
common  sense  had  not  parted  company  with 
such  theorists  some  time  ago,  they  would 
drop  that  attempt,  and  prove  instead  "the 

*John  ill,  18. 

115 


Destroying  the 

compatibility  of  a  theoretical  faith  witli  a 
practical  skepticism/^  Some  people  think 
they  could  find  proof  of  that  proposition  close 
at  hand. 

These  and  other  kindred  transcendental 
vagaries  seem  to  be  very  popular  these  times. 
Are  they  not  the  echoes  of  Strauss 's  dictum, 
in  which  he  explained  ^^the  essence  of  the 
Christian  faith  to  be  perfectly  independent 
of  his  criticism  ? '  *  He  said :  ^  ^  The  supernat- 
ural birth  of  Christ,  His  miracles,  His  resur- 
rection and  ascension  remain  eternal  truths, 
whatever  doubts  may  be  cast  on  their  reality 
as  historical  facts.'' 

All  this  is  obviously  absurd,  and  makes 
one  wonder  as  to  what  kind  of  an  idealistic 
world  such  men  live  in.  The  position,  how- 
ever, of  those  who  discredit  the  testimony 
of  the  Holy  Scriptures  by  denying  the  reve- 
lation of  facts  or  persons,  the  inspiration  of 
the  narratives  and  their  trustworthiness,  and 
who  yet,  like  the  late  Dean  Farrar  and  Har- 
nack  and  Lyman  Abbott  and  William  North 
116 


Foundations 

Rice,  profess  to  believe  in  the  resurrection 
of  Christ  on  the  strength  of  such  unreliable 
human  evidence  alone,  is  fully  as  illogical. 
Such  faith  is  manifest  credulity.  Indeed, 
there  is  no  evidence  whatever  to  either  the 
miraculous  conception  or  the  resurrection  of 
Christ,  if  there  was  no  revelation  of  facts. 
The  evidence  of  the  one  rests  upon  the  reve- 
lation made  to  Mary  and  Joseph,  the  evi- 
dence of  the  other  on  the  personal  revelation 
of  Jesus  Christ— a  very  palpable  fact— made 
known  to  His  disciples. 

Furthermore,  nothing  can  be  more  pre- 
posterous than  for  our  evangelical  higher 
critics  to  deny  the  inspiration  and  trust- 
worthiness of  the  New  Testament  record,  and 
that  of  the  Old  Testament,  upon  which  it 
rests;  and  the  worth  of  Christ ^s  unquestioned 
affirmation  of  the  Divine  authority  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  yet  admit  and  affirm  the  Di- 
vine authority  of  His  doctrinal  teachings 
which  are  contained  in  the  records  which  they 
count  so  much  historic  quicksand. 
117 


Destroying  the 

Indeed,  the  whole  situation  is  absurd  in 
the  extreme,  and  is  without  parallel  in  the 
history  of  the  Christian  Church.  And  cer- 
tainly the  human  mind  must  be  very  elastic 
in  its  workings,  when  it  will  allow  intelligent 
men  practically  to  maintain  doctrines  which 
they  theoretically  reject;  to  eulogize  epony- 
mous heroes  as  if  they  considered  them  act- 
ually old  saints;  to  use  fictitious  history  as 
if  they  thought  it  real  narrative;  to  quote 
comforting  promises,  as  if  they  supposed 
God  made  them;  to  use  suspicious  texts  to 
prove  new  dogmas;  and,  what  is  more,  to 
hold  publicly  to  faith  in  Jesus  Christ  when 
faith  in  the  historic  foundation  is  gone. 

How  men  can  thus  act  a  double  part  and 
remain  sincere  is  a  puzzle  to  many.  I  leave 
that  matter  to  the  reader,  but  wish  to  say  that 
if  it  is  possible  for  some  who  have  the  iron  of 
several  generations  of  pious  ancestors  in 
their  blood,  and  who  have  had  a  knowledge  of 
the  living  Christ  in  the  soul,  to  stand  in  the 
faith  fast  and  strong  when  the  Bible  is  no 
118 


Foundations 

longer  a  reliable  record  to  them,  their  num- 
bers are  not  large  nor  their  faith  very  infec- 
tions. The  present  condition  is  not  likely  to 
last  long.  It  once  existed  in  ancient  Eorae, 
but  it  was  just  before  the  complete  collapse 
of  faith.  Eeligion,  like  other  things,  must 
not  only  soon  cease  to  bear  fruit,  but  even 
blossoms  and  leaves,  when  fully  severed  from 
its  roots. 

The  utter  folly  and  falsity  of  the  claim 
that  Christianity,  an  historic  religion,  can 
not  be  unfavorably  affected  by  the  weaken- 
ing of  her  historical  foundation  is  seen  the 
moment  one  observes  the  changes  that  are 
taking  place  wherever  these  false  Scriptural 
views  prevail.  The  Bible  itself  is  being  low- 
ered down  in  the  estimation  of  thousands, 
and,  being  no  longer  regarded  as  a  reliable 
source  of  information  by  them,  is  fast  find- 
ing its  place  on  the  high  shelf  or  in  the  garret. 
Goldwin  Smith  says:  ^^ Science  and  criticism 
combined  appear  to  be  undermining  the  foun- 
dations of  religious  belief,  by  which  in  the 
119 


Destroying  the 

mass  of  men  conscience  has  hitherto  been  so 
largely  supported.'^ 

The  evil  effects  of  this  is  especially  felt 
by  the  Church.  She  is  suffering  now  from  a 
severe  spiritual  chill.  Her  old-time  enthu- 
siasm for  individual  soul-saving  has  largely 
given  way  to  a  spasmodic  effort  for  the  bet- 
terment of  the  community.  With  the  new 
views  has  come  a  demand  for  a  ''new  relig- 
ious experience,''  which  is  religion  without 
regeneration,  the  religious  experience  which 
Nicodemus  ''enjoyed''  before  Christ  saved 
him. 

The  Christian  Church  has  never  known  in 
all  her  history  such  a  successful  revival  ex- 
tinguisher as  this  fire-damp  of  higher  crit- 
icism. 

The  most  marked  change,  however,  is  seen 
in  the  new  theology  it  is  producing.  While 
these  so-called  conservative  critics  have  been 
soothing  our  fears  with  soft  assurances  of 
safety,  they  have  been  busy  evolving  their 
new  theology,  which  for  a  time  was  in  a  very 
120 


Foundations 

nebulous  state,  but  which  stands  out  now  suf- 
ficiently clear  to  enable  us  to  distinguish 
many  of  its  main  features.  It  is  not  barely 
the  old  orthodox  theology  viewed  from  a  new 
standpoint  or  a  simple  restatement,  but  a 
system  radically  different  in  permanents, 
fundamentals,  and  spirit.  It  is  largely 
Kitschlian.  If  it  is  not  modern  paganism,  it 
is  certainly  not  historic  Christianity.  It  is 
not  alone  a  break  with  the  evangelical  views 
of  to-day,  but  with  the  patristic  and  apostolic 
teachings.  It  is  not  only  heretical,  but,  en 
bloc,  a  nest  of  heresies.  They  wish  to  make 
it  the  creed  of  Christendom;  but  I  can  not 
understand  how  any  one  who  claims  to  be  a 
Christian  can  have  any  sympathy  with  it 
whatever.  It  fails  to  see  any  close  connec- 
tion between  faith  and  reason;  to  believe  in 
the  resurrection  of  the  body;  to  be  sure  of 
the  immortality  of  the  soul ;  or  to  put  an  em- 
phasis on  the  sinfulness  of  sin,  or  to  regard 
it  as  hereditary,  or  as  liable  to  retributive 
justice.  No  vicarious  atonement  is  provided, 
121 


Destroying  the 

because  none  is  needed.  The  Apostles'  Creed 
has  lost  its  old  significance,  and  the  Atha- 
nasian  is  useful  merely  as  an  ^  *  antiquarian 
study. ' ' 

God  is  the  ever-immanent  Spirit;  but  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  not  a  person,  and  is  little  more 
than  a  phrase.  As  Christ  is  to  them  the  his- 
toric rather  than  the  living  Lord,  their  cry 
is,  *^Back  to  Christ."  He  had  no  real  pre- 
existence ;  was  the  Son  of  God,  as  we  are  all 
sons  of  God;  and  may  have  been  the  son  of 
Joseph.  His  Godhead  is  a  moral,  rather  than 
an  actual  fact.  He  is  the  ^^  religious  value  of 
God"  to  us;  but  not  Deity.  He  was  Divine, 
but  we  are  all  Divine,  and  differ  from  Him 
not  in  kind,  but  degree.  This  is  Mother 
Mary  Baker  Eddy's  idea  of  Him  also.  From 
this  it  would  appear  that  He  is  merely  the 
supreme  man,  and  that  men  are  little  Christs. 

In  the  heart  of  this  new  theology,  which 

the  critics  are  seeking  to  form  out  of  false 

philosophical  principles,   instead   of   out   of 

the    supernatural    doctrines    of    revelation, 

122 


Foundations 

there  is  evidently  bitter  opposition  to  Jesus 
Christ  as  the  Eternal  Son  of  God.  Although 
**the  storm  has  moved  round  the  whole  hori- 
zon," as  Dale  said,  ^4t  is  rapidly  concentrat- 
ing its  strength  and  fury  above  one  Sacred 
Head. ' '  Many  men,  who  in  these  days,  when 
reverent  phrases  mean  so  little,  compliment 
Him  highly,  are  really  among  those  who 
**  crucify  Him  afresh  and  put  Him  to  an  open 
shame.''  Eenan  could  say,  ^^Even  to-day 
rationalism  does  not  look  at  Him  closely,  ex- 
cept on  its  knees ; ' '  but  we  now  see  men  who 
class  themselves  as  evangelical  who  not  only 
scrutinize  him  closely  with  unbent  knees, 
but,  as  we  have  seen,  claim  a  Divine  nature 
like  His  own,  and  who  write  about  His 
*  ^  shortcomings, ' '  and  look  down  upon  Him 
as  their  inferior  in  science  and  Biblical  crit- 
ical knowledge. 

Probably  there  was  never  a  time  when 
men  were  better  informed  respecting  the  cir- 
cumstances connected  with  the  life  of  the  his- 
toric Christ,  or  a  time  when  their  teaching 
123 


Destroying  the 

regarding  Him  was  less  satisfactory.  Ttie 
vagueness  which  characterizes  the  thought 
of  our  day,  relating  to  Him,  is  most  deplor- 
able. One  is  greatly  impressed  with  this 
when  he  reads  the  works  of  such  men  as  John 
"Watson,  G.  A.  Gordon,  or  Principal  Fair- 
bairn,  or  listens  to  an  average  sermon. 

The  critics  are  loudly  claiming  that  the 
religious  opinions  of  the  Christian  public  are 
being  largely  influenced  by  the  *^  modern 
view,"  even  among  those  who  do  not  as  yet 
accept  fully  the  new  theology.  Men  promi- 
nent as  leaders  in  different  evangelical  bodies 
in  Great  Britain  say  that  a  rapid  change  is 
going  on  among  their  people  as  to  doctrinal 
beliefs;  that,  for  instance,  the  idea  of  condi- 
tional immortality  or  ultimate  restoration  is 
taking  the  place  of  the  old  doctrine  of  future 
punishment.  The  continuance  by  the  Wes- 
leyans  of  Dr.  Beet  as  an  instructor  in  the- 
ology gives  color  to  that  claim.  It  is  said 
that  the  drift  is  in  the  same  direction  in  this 
country.  H.  C.  Sheldon,  an  ^^  advanced 
124 


Foundations 

thinker, '  *  seems  to  think  that  Methodists  have 
changed  in  their  views  within  recent  years 
respecting  their  conception  of  the  Bible,  the 
subject  of  original  sin,  the  person  and  work 
of  Christ,  and  the  doctrine  of  Christian  per- 
fection. 

This  surely  can  not  be  true  with  re- 
gard to  the  rank  and  file  of  that  Church. 
Professor  William  James,  of  Harvard 
University,  a  Unitarian,  seems,  however, 
to  think  that  view  correct.  ''See,''  he 
says,  ''how  the  ancient  spirit  of  Methodism 
evaporates  under  those  wonderfully  able 
rationalistic  booklets  of  a  philosopher  like 
Professor  Bowne. "  It  is  to  be  supposed  that 
what  will  be  left  of  Methodism,  after  that  pro- 
cess of  evaporation  will  have  been  completed, 
will  be  as  dry  as  dust  and  as  spiritless  as  an 
Egyptian  mummy. 

It  is  claimed  that  the  trend  in  the  Protes- 
tant Episcopal  and  Congregational  bodies  is 
clearly  away  from  the  old  orthodox  forms  of 
belief. 

125 


Destroying  the 

Let  us  keep  in  mind  that  the  new  theology, 
or  the  drift  which  is  seen  in  that  direction  as 
to  doctrinal  views  generally,  which  is  so  hos- 
tile to  Christ  and  so  foreign  to  the  historic 
faith  of  the  Christian  Church,  is  largely  the 
natural  product  of  the  false  system  of  which 
we  speak. 

Dr.  Washington  Gladden  acknowledges 
that  the  new  Bible  makes  a  new  theology 
necessary.  He  writes :  ^ '  We  do  not  take  the 
same  view  of  the  Bible  itself  that  once  we 
took,  .  .  .  and,  therefore,  because  our 
view  of  the  book  has  changed,  and  our  meth- 
ods of  interpreting  it  have  changed  our  doc- 
trines even  in  their  Biblical  elements  must 
have  undergone  a  change."  ^^We  still 
speak,"  says  Dr.  Sabatier,  ^'of  the  inspira- 
tion of  the  prophets  and  of  the  apostles,  of 
atonement,  of  the  Trinity,  of  the  divinity  of 
Christ,  of  miracles ;  but  whether  in  a  greater, 
or  less  degree,  we  understand  them  differ- 
ently from  our  fathers."  Evidently  the  old 
doctrines  would  break  the  new  Scriptural 
126 


Foundations 

bottles.  New  wine,  well-diluted,  must  be  put 
in  the  weak,  new  wine-skins. 

When  our  Government  was  building  the 
Washington  monument  it  was  discovered, 
when  about  one-third  of  the  intended  height 
was  reached,  that  the  foundations  would  not 
support  any  further  weight.  Consequently 
General  Casey,  who  after  a  generation  had 
passed  had  been  placed  in  charge,  was  com- 
pelled, before  he  could  complete  it,  to  replace 
the  first  with  a  foundation  broad  and  strong 
and  capable  of  supporting  a  shaft  three  times 
as  high.  So  the  critics  find  that  an  unreliable 
record  will  not  support  a  reliable  Divine  reve- 
lation, or  the  theology  that  is  naturally  its 
outgrowth.  They  are  compelled  either  to  re- 
place their  uninspired,  almost  worthless  Bib- 
lical record  with  a  broad,  strong,  supernat- 
ural, trustworthy  one  to  sustain  the  supernat- 
ural doctrines  of  the  old  orthodox  theology, 
or  construct  their  new  dogmatic  theology  to 
correspond  with  the  weak  and  sinking  foun- 
dations. They  have  chosen  to  do  the  latter, 
127 


Destroying  the 

and,  so  far  as  one  can  judge,  the  liglit,  airy 
and  low  shaft  harmonizes  fully  with  the  inse- 
cure and  insufficient  base.  They  are  evi- 
dently building  of  wood,  hay,  and  stubble, 
instead  of  gold,  silver,  and  precious  stones. 
My  contention  and  conclusion  is,  that 
these  historic  critics  in  destroying  people's 
confidence  in  the  Bible  as  a  reliable  record 
by  their  teachings,  whether  they  intend  it  or 
not,  are  really  destroying  men's  confidence 
in  Christ  and  the  Christian  religion.  Chris- 
tianity as  a  religion  is  historic,  and  rests  on 
the  historic  Christ,  and  not  on  cunningly  de- 
vised fables;  and  faith,  which,  though  it  is 
in  a  sense  above  reason,  is  never  contrary  to 
or  divorced  from  reason,  is  just  as  necessary 
in  this  twentieth  century  as  in  the  first,  when 
men  heard  the  oral  testimonies  of  the  living 
witnesses  of  the  facts  involved ;  and  an  intel- 
ligent and  certain  knowledge  of  these  facts  is 
just  as  much  needed  in  these  days  of  doubt 
as  when  Luke  wrote  his  Gospel  in  order  that 
Theophilus  might  ^'know  the  certainty  of 
128 


Foundations 

those  things''  wherein  he  had  *^been  in- 
structed, ' '  and  when  John  penned  his  record 
of  facts  in  his  Epistle,  so  that  those  to  whom 
he  wrote  might  ^'believe  on  the  name  of  the 
Son  of  God.'' 

If  these  Old  and  New  Testament  records 
are  not  credible,  the  facts  are  not  certain; 
and  ours  is  not  a  reasonable  faith,  but  sheer 
credulity;  and  the  men  who  teach  that  these 
Scriptures  are  untrustworthy,  whatever  be 
their  standing  in  the  Church,  are  as  certainly 
destroying  the  Christian  faith  as  if  they 
boldly  attacked  the  body  of  truth  the  Scrip- 
tures contain,  as  did  Voltaire  and  Paine  and 
Ingersoll. 

But  the  records  are  credible,  and  the  facts 
are  certain;  and  the  established  Christian 
still  calmly  exclaims: 

"  Let  all  the  forms  that  men  devise 

Assault  my  faith  with  treacherous  art, 
I  '11  call  them  vanity  and  lies, 
And  bind  Thy  Gospel  to  my  heart.** 


129 


The  Higher  Critic's  Bible 
or  the  Residuum 


"And  it  came  to  pass  when  Jehudi  had  read  three 
or  four  leaves  that  the  king  cut  it  with  the  pen-knife  and 
cast  it  into  the  fire."    (E.  V.)— Jeremiah. 


The  Higher  Critic's  Bible 
or  the  Residuum 

One  would  naturally  suppose,  from  wliat 
these  so-called  constructive  critics  report, 
that  as  a  school  they  have  been  making  very 
rapid  progress  in  the  destruction  and  recon- 
struction of  the  Bible.  ^^In  the  providence 
of  God,"  they  tell  us  through  Briggs,  ^^some 
great  doubter  like  Voltaire,  or  Hume,  or 
Strauss  .  .  .  arises  to  lay  violent  hands 
upon  the  systems  in  which  truth  and  error 
are  combined,  raze  them  to  the  ground,  and 
trample  them  in  the  dust,  that  from  the  ruins 
the  imperishable  truth  may  be  gathered  up 
and  arranged  in  its  proper  order  and  har- 
mony."* Some  of  them  think  that  the  Word 
of  God  has  been  in  this  way  sufficiently  re- 
duced to  ruins  and  pulverized,  and  that  the 

*  The  Study  of  Holy  Scriptures,  p.  80. 

133 


The  Higher  Critic's  Bible 

time  for  reconstruction  has  arrived.  D.  S. 
Muzzey  postpones  the  constructive  work  to 
another  age,  but  rejoices  in  the  exhibition  of 
so  much  Biblical  ^^ brick-dust  and  tumbling 
mortar."  Others  claim  that  already  the 
Bible  has  become  a  ^^new  book  to  the  modern 
scholar. "  ^  ^  The  material,  ^ '  we  are  told, '  ^  has 
in  a  large  part  been  sifted  and  scientifically 
arranged. '^  We  have  not  yet  seen  this  new 
Scholar's  Bible,  unless  they  mean  by  it  the 
many-colored,  rainbow-like  Polychrome  ed- 
ition, which  they  seem  to  be  ashamed  to  finish. 
These  wreckers  and  Bible  builders,  however, 
greatly  excite  our  hopes  by  assuring  us  as 
competent  Scriptural  architects,  master  me- 
chanics, and  artisans,  that  as  the  '^temple  of 
Herod  and  the  city  of  the  Asmoneans  arose 
from  the  ruins  of  the  former  temples  and 
cities,  just  so  surely  will  the  old  Bible  rise 
in  the  reconstruction  of  Biblical  criticism  into 
a  splendor  and  glory  greater  than  ever  be- 
fore.''*  That  must  be  very  disappointing  to 

*  Briggs,  The  Study  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  p.  532. 

134 


or  the  Residuum 

tlie  agnostics,  but  a  source  of  great  encour- 
agement to  the  fearful  Christian  who  has  be- 
gun to  look  upon  the  inspired  temple  of  truth 
as  a  picturesque  ruin.  One  can  not  somehow 
help  wondering  as  to  whether  all  this  splen- 
dor is  to  come  out  of  the  old  ruins,  or  be 
simply  a  reflection  of  the  splendor  of  their 
own  scholarship. 

It  would  appear  that  if  they  do  not  expect 
to  '  *  out-Herod  Herod, ' '  they  at  least  hope  to 
equal  him  in  their  achievements ;  and  if  they 
do  may  we  not  expect  that  the  same  curse 
that  rested  upon  the  work  of  that  wretched 
sacrilegious  temple-builder  will  rest  upon  the 
no  less  profane  labors  of  these  Bible  builders, 
to  say  nothing  of  the  plagues  which  John  as- 
sures us  are  certain  to  come  to  those  who 
^  ^  take  from ' '  or  ^  ^  add  to '  ^  '  ^  the  words  of  this 
Book!'*  It  would  have  surprised  our  fathers 
and  mothers  to  hear  Voltaire,  Hume, 
and  Strauss,  or  other  critics  spoken  of  as 
providential  men,  or  Divine  truth  repre- 
sented as  ** razed"  or  turned  into  a  **dust 
135 


The  Higher  Critic's  Bible 

heap."     They  looked  upon  all  such  men  as 

*  infidels,"  and  thought  of  the  Bible  as  a 
splendid  temple  of  revelation,  which  was  un- 
shaken and  full  of  God's  presence  and  glory. 
They  were,  as  Joseph  Parker  says,  ^ '  gigantic 
believers.''  Well,  there  are  some  of  us  who 
still  believe  that  the  Word  of  God  is  not  as 
yet  '^rubbish"  that  needs  to  be  '^sifted,''  nor 
a  building  taken  to  pieces  that  needs  to  be 

*  ^  reconstructed, ' '  but  a  thoroughly  well  con- 
structed Book— an  organic  whole;  that  each 
part  fits  perfectly  into  the  others;  that  the 
evidence  of  the  presence  of  its  Author,  God,  is 
everywhere  throughout  it;  and  that  however 
much  we  may  be  aided  in  understanding  its 
origin  and  meaning  by  reverent  and  scholarly 
treatment,  it  certainly  needs  neither  the  '  ^  de- 
structive'' nor  the  ^^constructive"  labors  of 
these  hyper-critics.  And,  I  think,  we  may  all 
rest  assured  that  whatever  success  they  may 
have  in  tearing  down,  whatever  they  attempt 
to  build  will  not  last  many  decades  or  be  any- 
thing but  a  literary  botch;  and  a  Scriptural 

136 


or  the  Residuum 

deformity  and  a  curiosity  to  future  gener- 
ations. 

Indeed,  iconoclasts  are  usually  miserable 
constructors.  Any  rude,  rough  Goth  or  Van- 
dal soldier  could  have  defaced  or  destroyed 
all  the  most  precious  sculptured  gems  in 
Eome ;  but  all  of  those  barbarian  hordes  com- 
bined could  not  have  restored  a  broken  finger 
of  the  ''Dying  Gladiator."  Neither  can  all 
these  scholars  together  reproduce  a  book, 
chapter,  or  verse  of  the  Bible,  or  add  an  idea. 
If  it  were  solely  man-made,  it  might  possibly 
be  man-mended;  but  God  is  the  joint  Author, 
and  they  do  not  claim  to  need  His  help.  In 
the  nature  of  things  their  eif orts  must  prove 
abortive,  and  be  like  that  of  the  art-critics, 
who  added  each  a  touch  of  the  brush  to  the 
picture  that  was  hung  in  the  market  for 
their  correction— nothing  but  a  universal 
blot. 

Let  us  look,  however  at  the  work  these 
Biblical  savants  are  attempting  to  do.  While 
we  do  so  we  may,  for  the  sake  of  grouping 
137 


The  Higher  Critic's  Bible 

the  matter  here,  refer  at  times  to  what  ap- 
pears in  other  chapters. 

Having  by  their  divisive,  dissecting,  dis- 
turbing, and  destructive  methods  torn  the 
Holy  Scriptures  to  pieces,  and  having  broken 
up  their  whole  thought,  meaning,  plan,  order, 
and  history,  they  proceed  to  rearrange  the 
several  books  and  the  divided  parts  chrono- 
logically and  otherwise,  and  thus  change  the 
entire  character  of  the  Book,  so  that  as  a 
whole  it  may  be  made  to  conform  to  their 
pet  evolutionary,  historical  theory,  which 
Professor  Horswell  calls  a  ^^ steady  stream/' 
Some  modify  this  theory;  others  have  other 
theories  to  which  they  adjust  the  Bible,  which 
are  not  a  whit  more  to  be  commended. 

This  imaginary,  steady,  progressive  hy- 
pothesis they  stretch  all  along  Biblical  his- 
tory; and  on  it,  as  on  an  iron  girder,  they 
hang  all  the  Holy  Scriptures  according  to 
what  they  think  the  history  ought  to  have  been. 
They  place  the  prophets  for  the  most  part 
before  the  Pentateuch,  and  the  Psalms  after 
138 


or  the  Residuum 

the  Pentateuch.  All  was  tradition,  as  there 
was  no  writing  among  the  Hebrews  before 
Hosea's  or  at  farthest  Samuel's  time;  so 
they  hang  far  back  on  the  line  the  books  of 
Amos,  Hosea,  and  a  part  of  Isaiah,  and  per- 
haps a  very  few  of  the  Psalms.  Isaiah  they 
bisect,  dissect,  and  segregate  until  only  a  few 
excerpts  are  left  to  the  greatly  diminished 
old  prophet ;  and  the  remaining  tatters,  from 
two  to  twenty  or  more,  are  stretched  along 
over  the  centuries,  and  ascribed  to  various 
unknown  writers,  so  unworthy  or  so  obscure 
that  their  contemporaries  withheld  their 
names  from  the  record.  Having  worked  out 
their  composite  theories  of  the  Pentateuch, 
they  eliminate  Moses  as  a  writer  and  place 
their  ^ve  new  invented  authors— J,  and  E, 
D,  P,  and  R,— on  their  historical  progress- 
ive girder,  dating  their  writings  respect- 
ively about  850,  634,  450,  444  B.  C.  The 
Book  of  Joshua  is  so  closely  related  and  so 
full  of  allusions  to  the  books  of  Moses,  and 
so  fully  confirms  their  historical  character, 
139 


The  Higher  Critic's  Bible 

that  the  critics  feel  compelled,  as  redactors, 
to  deny  its  historicity,  and  to  link  it  to  the 
Pentateuch  with  a  corresponding  date,  and 
give  them  all  the  high-sounding  title,  Hexa- 
teuch.  In  the  old  Bible  the  Books  of  Judges, 
Ruth,  the  first  and  second  Samuel  form  a 
continuous  history  after  the  Pentateuch  and 
Joshua,  and  there  is  nothing  anywhere  to 
show  that  Samuel,  as  Jewish  tradition  claims, 
did  not  write  them;  but,  as  these  books  by 
their  testimony  seriously  affect  their  Josiah 
date  of  Deuteronomy,  the  critics  have  con- 
cluded to  consider  them  tradition  or  folklore, 
and  place  them  in  their  own  series  after  the 
Exile. 

The  Books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles  con- 
tinue the  history  of  Israel,  and  because  they 
confirm  in  a  remarkable  way  the  present 
order  and  reliable  character  of  the  Bible,  the 
^^ modern  view"  compels  the  critics  to  deny 
the  historicity  of  these,  and  to  put  their  dates 
far  in  advance  of  their  proper  places.  They 
do  the  same  with  Ezra  and  Nehemiah.  The 
140 


or  the  Residuum 

Song  of  Solomon,  Proverbs,  Ecclesiastes, 
and  Lamentations  are  all  severed  from  their 
reputed  authors  and  shoved  forward  many 
centuries.  Professor  H.  C.  Sheldon  assures 
us  that  ''Ecclesiastes  has  a  pessimistic 
trend;''  that  the  ''Song  of  Solomon  is  plainly 
a  poem  of  human  loves ; ' '  and  that  ' '  some  of 
the  items  in  the  Book  of  Esther  border  upon 
the  incredible."*  The  critics  generally  rep- 
resent Esther,  Job,  Daniel,  and  Jonah  as  im- 
aginative creations  largely,  and  as  belonging 
to  that  newly-discovered  classic  Hebrew 
period— the  Maccabean.  They  tell  us  that 
Daniel  was  written  about  167  B.  C.  by  some 
unknown  moralist.  Almost,  if  not  all,  the 
Psalms  they  tear  away  from  David.  They 
string  them  on  the  line  from  his  age  or  after 
to  about  150  B.  C.  "There  are  sentences  in 
the  Psalms,"  Sheldon  says,  "which  are  mani- 
festly the  expression  of  hot  human  passion,  "f 
They  arrange  and  characterize  the  remaining 
books  after  the  same  manner. 


*  System  of  Christian  Doctrine,  pp.  122, 128.       jrlbid.  p.  142. 

141 


The  Higher  Critic's  Bible 

In  tlie  reconstruction  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment they  find  themselves  within  much  nar- 
rower chronological  limits  than  in  that  of  the 
Old;  and  the  tendency  lately  has  been,  being 
forced  by  documentary  evidence,  to  place  the 
origin  of  the  books  at  dates  much  more  re- 
mote than  formerly;  but  they  give  to  each  a 
very  uncertain  character.  They  rank  the 
Gospel  of  Mark  as  the  oldest  and  most  trust- 
worthy, but  a  recension  from  an  earlier  one. 
The  Gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke  come  later, 
and  are  compilations,  with  expansions  and  in- 
terpolations, and  are  more  or  less  legendary. 
The  basal  source  of  these  is  the  ^^  Sayings  of 
Jesus,''  termed  ^^ Matthew's  Logia."  They 
assume  this  but  are  unable  to  offer  any  satis- 
factory proof  that  that  hypothetical  collection 
ever  existed.  They. are  still  hunting  for  it 
amid  the  mazes  of  their  critical  science.  The 
Gospel  of  John  is  located  towards  the  close  of 
the  first  century,  or  later.  They  say  that  it  is 
not  the  composition  of  the  beloved  disciple, 
but  that  it  represents  his  teachings  and  tradi- 
142 


or  the  Residuum 

tions.  None  of  the  Gospels  is  looked  upon, 
by  them,  as  genuine  or  strictly  authentic. 
They  date  the  Books  of  Acts  and  Eevelation 
anywhere  between  80  and  110  A.  D.  Holtz- 
man  ranks  the  first  with  the  Acts  of  Paul  and 
Thecla,  but  Eamsay,  himself  a  higher  critic, 
before  his  eyes  were  opened  by  personal  ob- 
servations in  Asia  Minor,  looks  upon  Luke 
as  an  historian  of  a  high  order.  The  Book  of 
Eevelation,  they  tell  us,  is  not  predictive 
prophecy,  but  expresses  the  simple  longings 
and  hopes  of  the  early  Church,  notwithstand- 
ing its  author's  claim  that  it  is  a  ^^revela- 
tion'' of  ^^  things  that  must  shortly  come  to 
pass"  given  by  God  to  Christ,  and  by  Christ 
to  John.  Paul's  Epistles  to  the  Eomans, 
Corinthians,  Galatians,  Philippians,  and  Phil- 
emon, and  the  first  Epistle  of  Peter  are  ac- 
cepted by  almost  all  modern  scholars  as  genu- 
ine, and  the  most  of  them  as  bearing  their 
proper  dates.  The  critics  tell  us  that  the  ear- 
liest documents  are  the  Epistles  of  Paul  to 
the  Thessalonians,  which  were  written  54, 
143 


The  Higher  Critic's  Bible 

55  A.  D. ;  that  the  most  recent  is  the  second 
Epistle  of  Peter,  or  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  which 
originated  as  late  as  A.  D.  140,  or  later;  and 
that  the  others  are  scattered  through  an  in- 
tervening period  of  well-nigh  a  centnry.  The 
most  of  them  reject  the  Panline  authorship 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  but  have  not 
yet  determined  as  to  whether  Barnabas,  or 
Apollos,  or  Mark,  or  Aquila,  or  Luke,  or  a 
woman  named  Priscilla,  as  Harnack  suggests, 
was  the  writer.  The  second  Epistle  of  Peter 
has  not  much  canonical  force  according  to 
Professor  H.  C.  Sheldon.  He  says:  ''Until 
its  claims  are  more  clearly  established  it  can 
not  prudently  be  treated  as  an  apostolic  writ- 
ing.'^* 

It  is  easily  seen,  even  by  a  hasty  examina- 
tion, that  this  new,  artificial,  arbitrarily  ar- 
ranged book  is  the  true  Bible,  especially  the 
Old  Testament,  thrown  into  utter  confusion, 
turned  topsy  turvy,  filled  with  endless  contra- 
dictions and  falsehoods,  and  that  as  a  literaiy 

*  System  of  Christian  Doctrine,  p.  128. 

144 


or  the  Residuum 

production  it  is  very  incoherent,  clumsy,  and 
seamy.  When  we  consider  how  they  solve 
its  various  literary  problems,  determine  the 
age  and  character  of  each  document,  and  di- 
lute the  meaning  of  inspiration,  and  then  take 
an  inventory  of  what  they  force  into  the  book 
which  is  new,  idealistic,  and  false;  and  what 
they  force  out  of  it  which  is  old,  fundamental, 
and  true,  we  can  not  fail  to  see  that  there 
is  not  much  left  to  us  of  our  mother's  Bible. 

The  change  which  has  occurred  in  their 
own  minds  with  respect  to  its  character  and 
worth,  is  to  themselves  much  more  serious 
than  any  transformation  that  can  be  made  in 
its  external  form.  It  is  to  them  now  the  prod- 
uct of  man  rather  than  God,  and  as  a  compila- 
tion solely  the  work  of  the  rabbis  of  the  syna- 
gogue and  of  the  leaders  of  the  primitive 
Christian  Church ;  it  is  literature,  rather  than 
revelation ;  it  is  a  book  of  fiction,  rather  than 
of  facts ;  and  a  grouping  of  ideas,  rather  than 
of  supernatural  doctrines. 

One  is  at  a  loss  to  conceive  how  any  one 
10  145 


The  Higher  Critic's  Bible 

can  value  the  book  or  their  new  view  of  it 
very  highly.  It  contains  so  many  confessed 
mistakes  and  marks  of  fraud,  and  so  much  of 
its  sacred  history  has  dispersed  itself  in  float- 
ing clouds,  that  it  is  impossible,  it  seems  to 
us,  for  ordinary  people  to  receive  it  as  real 
or  in  a  general  way  reliable. 

They  do  not  give  us  simply  a  book  with 
one-half  or  more  of  its  facts  destroyed,  but 
something  worse;  a  book  consisting  largely 
of  modern  fiction,  without  any  basis  of  facts 
whatever.  The  most  of  us  would  prefer  the 
old  Book,  even  in  ruins,  to  their  reconstructed, 
imaginative  new  one;  the  old  Bible,  even  as 
they  view  it  with  its  myths  and  legends  and 
fables  and  old  traditions,  to  their  new  Bible 
with  its  new  mythical  authors,  its  new  fancied 
meanings,  its  newly-invented  history,  and  its 
new  traditions. 

Men  usually  value  lightly  books,  or  any- 
thing else  that  is  not  to  be  depended  upon, 
like  an  unbelieving  Chicago  druggist,  who 
said,  in  answer  to  a  question  of  one  seeking 
146 


or  the  Residuum 

information:  ^^That  City  Directory  is  no 
good ;  it  is  full  of  mistakes  like  the  Bible,  and 
is  not  to  be  depended  upon."  But  they  tell 
us  that  it  is  more  precious,  with  its  mistakes 
and  deceptions  and  without  its  historic  char- 
acters and  facts,  than  it  was  before.  Some 
assure  us  also  that  it  is  an  inspired  Book, 
which  makes  us  wonder  and  ask:  ^'Is  it  in- 
spired to  create  right  impressions  or  wrong 
impressions?  To  represent  history  or  mis- 
represent history!" 

One  manifest  defect  in  their  Bible  is  that 
it  does  not  impress  us  with  the  reality  of  the 
spiritual  world;  the  spiritual  notions  and 
phenomena  have  faded  into  mist.  God  is  im- 
manent, but  He  does  not  directly  manifest 
Himself  to  men.  The  Bethlehem  skies  are 
voiceless  on  Advent  night,  and  there  is  not  a 
flutter  of  an  angel's  wing  in  or  around  the 
sepulcher  on  Easter  morning.  Heaven  is 
only  a  state,  and  Christ's  ascension  is  no 
longer  an  objective  fact.  Satan  does  not 
tempt  men,  nor  do  demons  possess  them,  nor 
147 


The  Higher  Critic's  Bible 

do  angels  minister  to  them.  Pentecost  is  for- 
gotten; the  Church  as  the  temple  of  God  is 
ignored ;  even  the  personality  and  presence  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  are  passed  over  in  silence. 

It  is  heterogeneous  and  incoherent,  with 
its  several  books  independent  of  each  other, 
and  the  volume  itself  cut  in  two;  whereas 
the  later  books  of  the  real  Bible  presuppose 
the  earlier,  and  even  the  Old  and  New  Testa- 
ments are  indissolubly  connected  as  the  roots 
and  trunk  of  a  tree,  as  Christ  intimated  when 
He  declared,  *^The  Scripture  can  not  be 
broken.'** 

'  ^  The  New  Testament  is  hidden  in  the  Old, 
the  Old  is  revealed  in  the  New. ' '  These  scho- 
lastic virtuosos,  with  their  defective  modern 
vision,  fail  to  discern  this  connection. 

They  consequently  fail  to  find  Jesus 
Christ  in  any  real,  vital  relation  in  Old  Testa- 
ment history,  teachings,  ceremonies,  sacri- 
ficial rites,  types,  promises,  or  even  its  more 
than  two  hundred  Messianic  prophecies  that 

♦John  X,  34 

148 


or  the  Residuum 

were  eventually  fulfilled  in  Him.  To  them 
He  belongs,  except  in  a  vague,  idealistic,  or 
evolutionary  sense  only,  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment, as  He  did  to  the  Sunday-school  boy  of 
whom  F.  B.  Meyer  speaks,  who,  when  asked  if 
his  teacher  in  the  Old  Testament  lessons  had 
spoken  of  Christ,  replied,  ^ '  0  no ;  that  's  at 
the  other  end  of  the  book.'' 

The  Christian  Church,  however,  from  the 
beginning  until  now  has  held  that  the  theme 
of  the  Old  Testament  throughout  is  the  Mes- 
siah. If  that  were  not  so,  what  meaning 
could  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  have?  and 
how  could  Paul,  referring  to  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, say  that  it  was  able  to  make  men  wise 
unto  salvation  through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ? 
Jesus  Christ  evidently  thought  Himself  to  be 
the  subject  of  the  Old  Testament  teaching 
and  prophecy,  and  sought  frequently  to  im- 
press that  fact  upon  the  minds  of  His  dis- 
ciples and  the  people  generally.  Luke  tells 
us  that  after  His  resurrection,  when  He  could 
not  have  been  subject  to  human  limitations 
149 


The  Higher  Critic's  Bible 

such  as  Kenotism  claims,  as  all  power  was 
given  to  Him  then  in  heaven  and  in  earth, 
beginning  at  Moses  and  all  the  prophets.  He 
expounded  unto  them  in  all  the  Scriptures 
the  things  concerning  Himself.  It  is  very  ob- 
vious that  if  the  Old  Testament  is  as  they 
construe  it,  Christ  created  a  wrong  impres- 
sion, which  we  can  not  allow,  and  that  we 
have  no  historic  basis  in  the  Old  for  Christ, 
or  His  teachings  in  the  New. 

But  even  in  their  New  Testament  Jesus 
Christ  has  a  very  uncertain  and  indefinite 
place.  If  as  the  critics  away  to  the  front  hold 
the  four  Gospels  come  to  us  second  or  third- 
hand  ;  and  if  the  writers  reported  Him  inade- 
quately; and  if  they,  especially  Matthew, 
often  interpolated  their  own  sayings  for  His ; 
and  if  they  gave  us  suspicious  incidents;  in 
short,  if  they  were  faulty  and  uninspired  his- 
torians, then  their  books  are  historically  du- 
bious, to  say  the  least,  and  we  have  nothing 
sure  regarding  Him,  because  you  can  make 
nothing  certain  by  what  is  doubtful  or  dubi- 
150 


or  the  Residuum 

OTIS.  Then  tlie  views  which  we  have  of  Him 
in  the  Gospels  are  not  exact  photographs,  but 
pictures  quite  idealistic  like  His  face  in  art, 
or  the  modern  portraits  of  the  archaic  Scot- 
tish kings  that  adorn  the  walls  of  Holyrood 
Palace. 

Their  New  Testament  is  almost  as  dis- 
honoring to,  Christ  as  their  Old,  and  as 
worthless. 

The  real,  inspired  New  Testament,  on  the 
other  hand,  not  only  honors  Him  as  God,  but 
represents  Him  truly  and  fully,  and  we  have 
no  other  ancient  documents  of  any  kind  that 
have  been  so  completely  and  absolutely  vin- 
dicated, as  to  their  authorship  and  accuracy 
in  narrative  and  teaching  as  have  been  these 
inspired  apostolic  records  after  long  and 
thorough  scrutiny. 

Their  genuineness  and  veraciousness  have 
been  proven  beyond  a  doubt  by  many  of  the 
ripest  and  best  modern  scholars. 

As  the  more  conservative  of  these  pundits 
give  the  larger  number  of  PauPs  Epistles  and 
151 


The  Higher  Critic's  Bible 

some  other  New  Testament  writings  a  place 
as  genuine  in  their  canon,  one  would  natu- 
rally conclude  that  they  thus  leave  us  some- 
thing firm  and  substantial  to  build  our  faith 
upon;  but  they  do  not.  Men  like  Harnack, 
Sabatier,  and  Fremantle,  and  their  evangel- 
ical followers  in  Europe  and  America,  though 
they  admit  the  genuineness  of  these  writings, 
hold  that  the  sayings  of  Christ  in  the  Gospels 
alone  give  us  the  Gospel,  and  that  in  the 
Pauline,  Petrine,  and  Johannine  documents 
we  have  simply  the  personal  ideas  and  opin- 
ions of  the  writers,  as  they  had  no  ^^  special 
kind  of  inspiration  in  the  act  of  writing,  or 
to  qualify  them  for  writing.''  Horton  dis- 
counts Paul's  authority  enough  to  say,  ''To 
quote  him  as  an  exegete  of  the  ancient  Scrip- 
tures would  be  obviously  absurd."  But  as 
Dale,  Cremer,  and  others  have  conclusively 
shown,  Christ  came  not  so  much  to  preach  the 
Gospel,  as  that  after  His  death,  resurrection, 
and  ascension,  the  Gospel,  having  been  spe- 
cially and  fully  revealed  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to 
152 


or  the  Residuum 

men  such  as  Paul,  Peter,  and  Jolin,  might  be 
preached. 

Paul's  representation  of  Christ  and  His 
Gospel,  though  differing  in  development,  was 
in  essential  harmony  with  the  teachings  of 
his  Master,  and  decisive  documentary  testi- 
mony is  not  wanting  to  show  that  it  was  in 
essential  harmony  with  that  of  the  other  wit- 
nessing followers  of  Christ.  In  fact,  there 
was  but  one  representation  made  of  the  Gos- 
pel for  several  generations,  as  may  be  proven 
by  the  Scriptures  themselves  and  by  the  pa- 
tristic, heathen,  and  Jewish  writings  of  those 
times ;  and  that  representation  is  the  modern 
evangelical  conception  of  the  Gospel. 

At  a  glance  one  can  see  that  the  Gospel, 
as  the  Christian  Church  has  understood  it 
from  the  first,  could  not  have  come  from  the 
higher  critic's  Bible.  ''Fifty  years  of  study, 
thought,  and  reading,  given  largely  to  the 
Bible  and  to  the  literature  which  peculiarly 
relates  to  it,  have  brought  me  to  the  conclu- 
sion," says  Dr.  George  E.  Ellis,  a  leading 
153 


The  Higher  Critic's  Bible 

Boston  Unitarian  minister,  ^Hhat  the  Book- 
taken  with  the  special  Divine  quality  and 
character  claimed  for  it,  and  so  extensively 
assigned  to  it  as  inspired  and  infallible,  as  a 
whole  and  in  all  its  contents— is  an  orthodox 
Book.  It  yields  what  is  called  the  orthodox 
Creed. ' '  This  evidently  is  true,  and  no  treat- 
ment, no  matter  how  forced  on  the  part  of  the 
so-called  evangelical  higher  critics,  can  make 
their  Bible  yield  anything  else  than  a  hetero- 
dox Creed. 

If  ^  ^  inspiration  is  not  infallibility,  and  the 
claim  that  it  guarantees  infallibilty  of  any 
kind  must  be  distinctly  denied, '  ^  as  Professor 
Ladd,  of  Yale  University,  announces,  then 
we  are  not  sure  that  the  old  orthodoxy  is 
right,  or  the  liberal  orthodoxy  so  far  as  it 
has  emerged  from  chaos  is  wrong;  nor  need 
we  wonder  that  the  critics  are  at  sea  theolog- 
ically, and  that  Dr.  George  A.  Gordon,  promi- 
nent among  them,  heads  a  chapter  in  his  re- 
cent book  with  ^'The  Quest  for  a  Theology;*' 
or  that  the  study  of  theology  has  fallen  into 
154 


or  the  Residuum 

decay  in  all  their  theological  schools,  because 
the  theology  taught  out  of  a  Bible  whose  ^in- 
spiration" fails  to  '^  guarantee  infallibility 
of  any  kind"  can  have  no  solid  foundation  or 
settled  limits  or  weight.  Neither  can  it  have 
any  special  authority.  Indeed,  none  is 
claimed  for  it.  ''Since  inerrancy  or  infalli- 
bility can  be  predicated,"  writes  Professor 
William  North  Eice,  ' '  neither  of  the  Bible  as 
a  whole  nor  any  particular  part  of  the  Bible, 
no  single  sentence  of  the  Bible  can  be  of  itself 
authoritative."* 

Tom  Paine,  assuming  the  Bible  to  be  unin- 
spired, fallible,  and  unauthoritative,  and  as 
to  its  origin  much  as  the  critical  scholars  of 
this  school  now  claim  it  to  be,  very  fairly 
characterized  the  study  of  theology  out  of 
their  book  when  he  said :  ' '  The  study  of  the- 
ology is  the  study  of  nothing;  it  is  founded  on 
nothing ;  it  rests  on  no  authorities ;  it  has  no 
dates ;  it  can  demonstrate  nothing,  and  it  ad- 
mits of  no  conclusions."    And  it  is  difficult 


*The  Christian  Religion  in  an  Age  of  Science,  p.  390. 

155 


The  Higher  Critic's  Bible 

to  see  how  they  can  refuse  to  accept  his  con- 
clusion :  '  ^  Instead,  then,  of  studying  theology, 
as  is  now  done  out  of  the  Bible  and  Testa- 
ment, the  meanings  of  which  books  are  al- 
ways controverted,  and  the  authenticity  of 
which  is  disproved,  it  is  necessary  that  we 
refer  to  the  Bible  of  the  creation. ' ' 

That  many  of  them  agree  with  him  is  evi- 
dent, for  they  are  seeking  to  rest  their  new 
theology  on  philosophical  principles,  rather 
than  upon  Revelation. 

That  they  recognize  the  nondescript  and 
unauthoritative  character  of  their  production 
is  seen  also  in  that  each  reader  is  supposed 
to  accept  such  portions  as  are  approved  by 
his  reason  only. 

Now  I  hold  that  a  Bible  whose  books  have 
no  canonical  force  and  are  not  held  to  be 
directly,  divinely  inspired,  and  which  is  not 
authoritative  as  a  Book,  can  never  have  the 
commanding,  decisive,  and  helpful  influence 
upon  men  that  the  Word  of  God  has  had. 

A  Bible  which  is  not  the  Word  of  God, 
156 


or  the  Residuum 

but  which  only  contains  the  Word  of  God  as 
higher  criticism  teaches,  must  and  is  sup- 
posed to  teach  both  what  is  false  and  what 
is  true.  Such  a  book  must  be  necessarily  not 
only  a  source  of  perplexity  to  the  truth- 
seeker,  but  also  a  menace.  Error  is  never 
more  dangerous  than  when  admixed  with 
truth. 

One  unfamiliar  with  pharmacy  could  with 
as  much  safety  select  remedies  from  the  un- 
labeled bottles  on  the  shelves  of  a  drugstore, 
as  the  average  reader  could  discriminate  with 
regard  to  truth  in  such  a  book.  An  East  In- 
dian Mohammedan  reasons  this  way :  ^  ^  But  if 
the  Bible  is  erroneous  in  certain  parts,  while 
other  parts  of  it  contain  some  truth,  what 
tests  do  Christians  have  in  their  hands  for 
distinguishing  truth  from  error!  If  it  is 
reason,  then  the  Christian  faith  must  openly 
avow  itself  to  be  based  on  reason  and  not  on 
revelation.  .  .  .  The  truth  of  the  higher 
criticism  and  the  error  of  the  Bible  being  once 
recognized,  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  Chris- 
157 


The  Higher  Critic's  Bible 

tian  religion  can  stand  for  a  moment.''  In- 
deed to  make  the  human  reason  the  criterion 
of  revelation  is  plainly  the  very  essence  of  ra- 
tionalism, and  must  inevitably,  as  confessed 
rationalists  claim,  invalidate  the  whole  Book. 
Sane  reason  may  take  cognizance  of  the  evi- 
dence upon  which  revelation  rests,  but  the 
contents  of  revelation  may  be  above,  or  para- 
doxical to  reason.  From  an  evangelical 
standpoint  man  is  viewed  as  a  fallen  being. 
His  reason,  like  all  his  other  faculties,  has 
been  injured,  and  is  not  and  never  has  been 
since  the  fall  an  infallible  or  sufficient  guide. 
To  subject  the  Bible  to  each  man's  judgment, 
regarding  each  portion,  is  to  assume  the  very 
opposite  of  this;  namely,  that  he  is  compe- 
tent to  decide  as  to  all  the  matters  involved, 
which  is  very  absurd. 

Multitudes  of  people  realize  their  own  in- 
competency, and  need  and  must  have  some- 
thing more  than  their  own  judgment  to  lean 
on— something  outside  of  themselves.  They 
may  throw  oif  the  control  of  the  Church,  and 
158 


or  the  Residuum 

emancipate  themselves  from  the  authority  of 
the  Bible ;  but  it  will  be  only  to  cast  aside  all 
restraint,  or  to  accept  the  authority  of  a 
Dowie,  or  a  Mother  Eddy,  or  the  Book  of 
Mormon,  or  higher  critical  scholarship,  or 
some  other  modern  or  ancient  delusion. 

It  is  not  sufficient  to  answer  that  whatever 
truth  the  Bible  contains  is  authoritative,  as 
it  appeals  to  the  religious  feelings,  the  intu- 
itions, or  reason  of  each  man,  because  in  this 
way  you  make  these  fallible  faculties  the 
judges  rather  than  the  servants  of  truth,  and 
we  all  know  that  all  these  endowments  in  men 
are  very  variable  and  unreliable.  They  differ 
in  persons,  and  in  the  same  persons  at  differ- 
ent times,  as  their  literary  or  other  tastes 
differ;  and  consequently  if  we  had  no  other 
than  this  very  fallible  Bible  which  the  his- 
torical critics  offer  us,  which  is  subject  to  the 
fallible,  ever-differing  feelings,  intuitions, 
and  reason  of  men,  we  would  be  without  any 
general,  permanent,  ethical,  or  doctrinal 
standard ;  and  the  Christian  public  would  be 
159 


The  Higher  Critic's  Bible 

at  once  in  a  state  of  moral  and  religions  an- 
archy. The  drift  of  society  is  to-day  strongly 
in  that  direction.  Individualism  is  becoming 
rampant.  ^ '  Every  man  his  own  pope,  ^ '  is  the 
motto  of  many.  Men  are  now  in  an  unusual 
manner  manifesting  their  utter  lack  of  re- 
spect for  the  authority  of  society's  unwritten 
laws  by  their  sodden  vices ;  for  the  authority 
of  civil  government  by  their  many  crimes  and 
the  establishing  of  mob  rule  and  lynch  law; 
for  the  authority  of  the  Church  by  ignoring 
her  rules  and  regulations,  and  their  open  de- 
nial of  her  right  to  interfere  with  the  prac- 
tices or  beliefs  of  her  membership,  or  even 
her  ministry.  Probably  it  will  be  difficult  for 
many  to  determine  whether  the  modern 
views  which  men  entertain  regarding  the 
Bible  and  its  authority  are  the  cause  or 
the  effect  of  this  present  unhappy  condition 
of  affairs. 

According  to  Professor  H.  C.  Sheldon,  of 
Boston  University  School  of  Theology,  even 
the  Church  must  no  longer  take  the  Bible  as 
160 


or  the  Residuum 

its  standard  of  faith,  but  rather  ^^  Christian 
consciousness."  To  do  otherwise  would  be 
a  ^^ species  of  tyranny  and  usurpation.'^  He 
uses  these  words:  ^'To  impose  as  matter  of 
belief  what  is  not  demanded  by  the  educated 
reason  and  feeling  of  the  Christian  commu- 
nity is  a  species  of  tyranny  and  usurpation. 
Legitimate  Church  authority  must  follow  in 
the  wake  of  Christian  consciousness.''*  It  is 
difficult  to  conceive  of  a  suggestion  better  cal- 
culated to  introduce  error  and  anarchy  into 
the  Church  of  God  than  this.  It  was  in  fol- 
lowing ^  ^  in  the  wake  of  the  so-called  educated 
reason  and  feeling  of  the  Christian  commu- 
nity, "  or  "  Christian  consciousness, ' '  that  the 
Roman,  Greek,  and  Liberal  Churches  were  led 
to  adopt  their  distinctive,  false,  and  unbib- 
lical  forms  of  belief,  and  which  still  leads 
them  to  retain  them.  It  is  only  by  holding 
fast  to  the  Bible  as  containing  in  fixed  and 
stereotyped  terms  the  permanent  truths  of 
religion,  that  an  individual  or  a  Church  can 


♦Sheldon,  System  of  Christian  Doctrine,  p.  151. 

11  161 


The  Higher  Critic's  Bible 

have  any  safe  anchorage.  But  the  modern 
mind  resents  this. 

It  would  seem  that  the  *^ modern  mind''  is 
diseased;  that  it  is  suffering  from  a  severe 
attack  of  ego-mania. 

*^It  [the  modern  mind]  can  not  make  it- 
self the  slave  of  men,"  Dr.  Denney,  a  mild 
higher  critic,  tells  us,  '^not  even  though  the 
men  are  Peter  and  Paul  and  John;  no,  not 
even  though  it  were  the  Son  of  man  Himself. 
It  resents  dictation,  not  willfully  nor  wan- 
tonly, but  because  it  must;  and  it  resents  it 
all  the  more  when  it  claims  to  be  inspired.'' 
All  of  this  shows  that  the  modern  mind  is 
in  a  bad  way— irrational,  afflicted  with  an  in- 
herited malady  which  Paul  properly  diag- 
nosed when  he  said  *^the  carnal  mind  [mod- 
ern mind]  is  enmity  against  God;  for  it  is 
not  subject  to  the  law  of  Gad,  neither  indeed 
can  be."*  It  is  very  observable  that  these 
men  who  *^ resent  dictation"  on  the  part  of 
man   or   God   assume   much   author  it  v   for 


*  Bomans  vlll,  7. 

162 


or  the  Residuum 

their  own  opinions,  and  substitute  the  iner- 
rancy of  their  own  feelings,  conscience,  or 
reason  for  the  inerrancy  of  the  precious 
Word  of  God. 

The  Bible  has  much  weight  of  authority 
with  men  who  view  it  properly,  because  many 
of  its  truths  not  only  appeal  powerfully  to 
their  reason  and  conscience,  but  because  they 
are  all  proven  by  the  inspiration  of  the 
writers ;  and  the  Book  as  a  Book  is  authorita- 
tive as  the  voice  of  God  through  them. 
*' There  is  a  world  of  difference,''  President 
Cyrus  Northrop  says,  '^  between  saying  this 
thing  is  true  because  God  said  it,  and  God 
said  this  because  it  is  true.  The  former  car- 
ries with  it  the  certainty  of  ^Thus  saith  the 
Lord.'  The  latter  is  of  no  validity,  because 
many  things  may  be  true  which  God  never 
said. ' ' 

How  often  we  need  a  ^^Thus  saith  the 

Lord"  to  settle  our  faith  and  quiet  our  fears ! 

Our  souls  find  repose  in  the  promises  of  the 

Bible,    not   because    the   promises    are    au- 

163 


The  Higher  Critic's  Bible 

thoritative  in   themselves,   but  because  we 
believe 

"The  voice  that  rolls  the  stars  along 
Speaks  all  the  promises." 

We  accept  the  two  hundred  or  more  pre- 
cepts of  Jesus,  not  because  all  of  them  appeal 
generally  to  the  reason  or  conscience,  for 
they  do  not,  but  because  they  come  to  us  not 
as  the  voice  of  fallible  man,  but  the  voice 
of  the  infallible  God. 

If  we  put  aside  the  Holy  Scriptures  as 
the  authoritative  Word  of  God,  we  shall  have 
remaining  no  test  of  morals,  no  criterion  of 
truth,  no  standard  of  appeal,  no  certain  voice 
of  authority,  and  no  sure  foundation  for  our 
faith. 

Unlike  the  real  Bible,  this  one  makes  very 
light  demands  on  our  faith.  It  is  not  neces- 
sary that  we  should  believe  in  the  first  eleven 
chapters  of  Genesis,  the  history  presented  in 
the  Hexateuch,  the  virgin  birth  of  Jesus, 
many  of  His  miracles,  or  even  His  infalli- 
bility. We  seem  to  be  required  to  believe 
164 


or  the  Residuum 

mainly  in  two  things;  first,  the  German 
Idealism  that  has  been  forced  into  it;  and, 
second,  the  infallibility  of  the  scholarship  that 
has  remade  it. 

These  scholars  appear  to  think  that,  if 
their  book  suffers  any  loss  in  these  ways,  it 
is  still  very  valuable  because  of  its  scientific 
CHARACTEK.  They  inform  us  that  our  old 
Bible  is  not  scientific,  and  that  it  was  not 
given  for  ^^instruction  in  any  science,  even 
psychology  and  the  science  of  religion."* 
This,  of  course,  is  news  to  some  of  us  who 
have  supposed  that  it  contained  in  some  sense 
God's  science  if  not  man's,  and  that  if  it  re- 
served a  pied  a  terre  for  anything,  it  did  so 
for  instruction  in  the  science  of  religion,  con- 
taining as  it  does  not  only  a  Divine  revelation 
of  religion,  but  a  vast  accumulation  of  obser- 
vations and  deductions  on  that  subject  cover- 
ing many  centuries.  If,  however,  they  are 
correct,  why  do  they  attempt  to  put  into  sci- 
entific   form    what    is    wholly    unscientific? 

*  Coe,  Spiritual  Life,  p.  15. 

165 


The  Higher  Critic's  Bible 

Would  any  one  seek  to  do  that  with  **  Pil- 
grim's Progress?''  and  will  it  not  be  time 
enough  for  them  to  give  us  a  scientifically  re- 
constructed Bible  when  science  shall  have  re- 
constructed a  Eaphael's  Transfiguration,  an 
Apollo  Belvedere,  or  an  Iliad! 

But  can  they  ever  produce  such  a  Bible? 
Never.  Science  is  ordered  knowledge.  Has 
the  Bible,  with  its  phenomena  of  revelation, 
inspiration,  prophecies,  miracles,  and  the- 
ophanies,  become  ordered  knowledge  to  them? 
True  science  never  goes  beyond  its  own 
sphere,  and  never  attempts  to  subject  spirit- 
ual phenomena  to  material  principles.  Scrip- 
tural, spiritual  phenomena  are  admittedly  out 
of  the  domain  of  science.  Briggs  confesses 
that  it  is  ^^difiicult  to  adjust  these  Divine  in- 
fluences to  the  principles  of  scientific  study. 
The  purely  personal  relations  of  Yahweh  to 
His  people  are  matters  into  which  the  scien- 
tific historian  does  not  venture."* 

If  that  is  true,  then  the  scientific  historian 


The  Study  of  Holy  Scriptures,  p.  586. 

166 


or  the  Residuum 

and  critic  should  not  attempt  to  reconstruct 
the  Bible  until  these  Divine  influences  can  be 
scientifically  dealt  with.  What  Drununond 
asserts  when  referring  to  another  matter  is 
true  here :  ^  ^  You  can  not  describe  the  life  of 
kings  or  arrange  their  kingdoms  from  the 
cellar  beneath  the  palace.  ^Art/  as  Brown- 
ing reminds  us, 

*  Must  fumble  for  the  whole,  once  fixing  on  a  part 
However  poor  surpass  the  fragment  and  aspire 
To  reconstruct  thereby  the  ultimate  entire.'  " 

They  claim  to  give  us  a  reconstructed 
Bible,  and  yet  are  not  able  to  build  higher 
than  the  cellar  walls. 

They  pretend  to  solve  the  Biblical  prob- 
lem, and  yet  leave  out  the  main  factors. 
"Whatever  they  produce  will  be  necessarily  a 
miserable  substitute  for  the  truly  inspired 
Word  of  God,  a  book  the  common  people 
could  neither  read,  understand,  nor  depend 
upon.  It  would  be  as  varied  in  its  meanings 
as  the  opinions  of  the  critics  themselves;  a 
167 


The  Higher  Critic's  Bible 

real  polychrome  book,  with  its  colors  chang- 
ing constantly  with  the  changing  complexion 
of  their  minds.  Like  all  scientific  works,  it 
would  become  antiquated  at  least  every 
decade;  for  we  all  know  that  the  ordered 
knowledge  of  one  age  becomes  the  ordered 
ignorance  of  the  next,  and  that  the  critics 
of  one  generation  annihilate  the  results  of  the 
preceding. 

President  Woodrow  Wilson,  of  Princeton 
University,  holds  that  the  achievements  of 
the  physical  scientists  have  ^'been  so  stupen- 
dous that  all  other  studies  have  been  set 
staring  at  their  methods,  imitating  their  ways 
of  thought,  ogling  their  results.  ^ '  This  folly, 
which  comes  in  so  many  forms  of  study  and 
investigation,  he  further  shows  is  the  work 
of  the  '^noxious,  intoxicating  gas  which  has 
somehow  got  into  the  lungs  of  the  rest  of  us 
from  out  the  crevices  of  his  (the  scientist's) 
workshop. '  '*  I  imagine  that  the  modern  Bib- 
lical critic  has  built  his  study  a  little  too  close 

*  Forum,  December,  1896. 

168 


or  the  Residuum 

to  the  physical  scientist's  workshop,  or  that 
his  lungs  are  too  weak  to  repel  the  evil  effects 
of  the  ^^ noxious,  intoxicating  gas.'' 

But  is  it  God's  plan  for  us  to  have  such  a 
book!  I  think  not,  on  account  of  things  I 
have  elsewhere  mentioned,  and  because  it  is 
not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  He  would  have 
given  us  our  Bible  by  inspired  men,  and  then 
give  us  another  by  uninspired  men,  such  as 
the  new  one,  which  is  said  to  be  so  much  su- 
perior to  the  first ;  and  chiefly  because  of  the 
nature  of  the  one  He  has  blest  us  with  so 
long,  which  was  clearly  never  intended  to  be 
subjected  to  scientific  analysis,  or  to  be  me- 
chanically reconstructed. 

There  are  things  that  are  evidently  in- 
tended to  be  appreciated,  reverenced,  and  en- 
joyed, but  not  to  be  roughly  handled  or  too 
closely  scrutinized;  a  dewdrop  searched  by  a 
sunbeam  passes  into  mist;  a  rose  dissected 
loses  its  beauty  of  color  and  form;  a  tree 
fades  if  one  digs  much  about  its  roots ;  a  man 
dies  if  the  surgeon  feels  too  freely  about  his 
169 


The  Higher  Critic's  Bible 

heart ;  and  what  is  best  in  a  poem  evades  the 
exact  scientific  critic.  The  life  of  anything 
is  a  secret.  ^'He  who  analyzes  it  kills  it." 
The  Bible  is  something  more  than  an  inani- 
mate body  of  truth ;  it  is  a  living  Book  which 
pulses  with  life.  Its  words  are  ^^  spirit  and 
life."  What  is  most  essential  and  best  dis- 
appears the  moment  it  is  improperly  ap- 
proached and  handled.  And  what  is  left  of 
the  Bible  after  these  hyper-critics  have  gone 
through  their  grinding  and  sifting,  or  dissect- 
ing and  dissolving  processes,  is  no  more  the 
real  living  Word  of  God  than  bran  and  shorts 
and  tailings  are  the  living  grain  that  went  in 
at  the  hopper ;  or  the  ashes  and  gases  which 
the  surgeon  or  chemist  has  preserved  in  jars 
on  his  shelf  and  labeled  ^'A  Man  of  150 
Pounds"  is  the  living  man.  The  Jehoiakim 
knife  has  cut  it  to  pieces ;  it  has  gone  through 
the  critic's  retort;  it  is  a  dead  book— to  him. 
It  is  no  more  the  real  Bible  than  Thomas  Jef- 
ferson's ^^wee  little  Bible,"  which  he  pro- 
duced by  cutting  out  with  his  penknife  what 
170 


or  the  Residuum 

his  reason  and  conscience  did  not  approve. 
Jefferson's  Bible  closes  with  the  verse, 
*' There  laid  they  Jesus  and  rolled  a  great 
stone  to  the  door  of  the  sepulcher  and  de- 
parted.'' Jefferson's  book  leaves  the  stone 
there;  and  there  the  newer  criticism  (when 
logical),  with  which  our  so-called  evangelical 
critics  are  in  close  sympathy,  leaves  the  stone. 
We  are  given  to  understand  that  their  new 
book,  as  it  lies  in  their  mind  or  is  being  con- 
structed, is  a  metamorphosed  Bible,  or  rather 

The  Residuum, 

or  what  is  left  of  the  old  out-of-date  Bible 
after  it  has  passed  through  their  critical 
crucible.  When  one  examines  closely 
'^The  Positive  Basis  of  the  Theology 
of  the  Future,"  by  Dean  Fremantle; 
^^  Christian  Dogma  and  the  Christian 
Life, ' '  by  Professor  A.  Sabatier ; ' '  How  Much 
is  Left  of  the  Old  Doctrines, ' '  by  Washington 
Gladden;  ^^The  Study  of  Holy  Scripture," 
by  Briggs— all  evangelicals;  to  say  nothing 
171 


The  Higher  Critic's  Bible 

of  extensive  and  more  radical  works  sncli  as 
^'The  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,"  edited  by 
James  Hastings;  and  the  ^^Encyclopaedia 
Biblica, ' '  edited  by  Cheyne  and  Black,  he  will 
be  convinced  that  what  is  left,  after  they  have 
put  the  Holy  Scriptures  through  their  critical 
sifting  process,  which  is  called  by  Briggs  the 
*' substance, "  is  of  very  little  account. 
*^What  is  left"  is  a  very  empty,  much  muti- 
lated, emasculated  book,  whose  prophets  are 
mostly  false,  some  of  whom,  like  the  second 
Isaiah,  have  forged  their  credentials;  whose 
priests  are  superstitious  tricksters;  whose 
apostles  accommodate  themselves  to  a  low 
public  opinion;  whose  authors  often  rival 
Chatterton  in  the  boldness  of  their  forgeries, 
and  the  author  of  Gulliver's  Travels  in  the 
extravagance  of  their  fabrications ;  and  whose 
documents,  frequently  simulated,  and  though 
supposed  to  be  archaic,  are  found  to  be  com- 
paratively modern.  ^  ^  What  is  left "  is  a  book 
which  has  lost,  for  the  most  part,  its  histor- 
icity, its  intellectual  security,  its  moral  per- 
172 


or  the  Residuum 

fectness,  its  spiritual  vividness,  its  doctrinal 
worth,  its  supernatural  quality,  and  its  Di- 
vine authoritative  character.  What  is  more 
than  all,  the  book  has  lost  out  of  it,  except  in 
a  very  uncertain  and  illusory  way,  the  heart 
of  it  all— Jesus  the  Christ,  the  Eternal  Son 
of  God.  And  His  true  followers  say  in  sor- 
row with  Mary,  ^  ^  They  have  taken  away  my 
Lord,  and  I  know  not  where  they  have  laid 
Him. ' '  The  book  has  lost  its  chief  character- 
istics ;  it  is  no  longer  God's  Bible ;  it  is  a  com- 
paratively worthless  modern  makeshift. 

The  higher  critics,  away  to  the  front,  look 
upon  their  Bible  much  in  this  way;  but  their 
professedly  evangelical  followers,  while  using 
the  principles  and  the  methods  of  the  former 
pooh-pooh  at  their  conclusions,  though  they 
are  vastly  inferior  to  their  leaders  as  to  log- 
ical consistency  and  scholarship. 

They  started  out  to  purify  and  rectify  the 
Bible ;  to  expose  its  errors  and  to  label  its  mis- 
takes; and  they  have  so  much  confidence  in 
their  own  splendid  scientific  scholarship  and 
173 


The  Higher  Critic's  Bible 

tlie  exact  working  of  their  metliods,  that  no 
matter  how  much  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  they 
throw  away  as  refuse,  they  are  very  sure  that 
what  remains  is  a  '' residuum"  of  very  great 
worth,  and  that  by  some  hocus-pocus  the  New 
Bible  is  very  much  more  valuable  than  the 
Old.  ^'The  smaller  Bible  has  gone,''  Dr. 
George  A.  Gordon  declares  with  apparently 
a  grateful  heart,  ^'and  the  immeasureably 
greater  Bible  has  come.''  They  do  not  tell 
us  where  they  got  the  material  which  they 
have  put  into  it  to  swell  it  to  such  large  pro- 
portions, and  they  mystify  us  by  saying  that 
it  is  less  Divine  than  the  Old,  but  more  hu- 
man; less  actual,  but  more  imaginative;  less 
miraculous,  but  more  scientific,  and  therefore 
more  valuable.  It  would  seem  that  their  won- 
derful process  has  condensed  all  that  is  essen- 
tial and  best  in  the  out-of-date  Bible  into  a 
Scriptural  tincture,  which  is  to  them  much 
more  valuable  than  it  was  in  its  primitive, 
raw  condition,  as  it  came  from  the  hand  of 
God  and  His  inspired  penmen. 
174 


or  the  Residuum 

They  remind  me  of  the  original  homeop- 
athists,  who  held  that  the  more  attenuated  a 
remedy  became,  the  more  powerful  it  would 
be  as  a  cure. 

Senator  Hoar,  being  a  Unitarian,  does  not 
rate  the  new  Bible  so  highly,  though  he  seems 
to  be  contented  with  it.  ' '  Higher  Criticism, ' ' 
he  is  reported  as  saying,  ^'has  eliminated 
from  the  Bible  all  that  is  of  any  importance 
except  the  Lord's  Prayer;  but  that  being  left 
untouched,  is  sufficient  for  the  wants  of  Chris- 
tendom. ' '  What  a  small  portion  of  the  Bible 
seems  to  be  '^sufficient"  for  the  ^' wants"  of 
these  critics !  Any  way,  I  am  glad  that  they 
have  left  Christendom  even  that  morsel  to 
bless  itself  with. 

It  is  wonderful  that  they  should  all  be  so 
happy  over  what  is  left,  when  there  is  so 
little  there  of  what  their  godly  fathers  and 
mothers  prized  so  highly,  and  of  what  sup- 
ported them  in  life  and  comforted  them  in 
death.  But  Mark  Tapley  was  never  better 
pleased  with  things  than  they  are  over  the 
175 


The  Higher  Critic's  Bible 

residuum,  or  than  they  will  be  should  it  really 
be  reduced  to  the  dimensions  of  the  Lord's 
Prayer;  and  should  even  that  escape  them, 
and  they  should  have  only  the  covers  and 
their  ^^ dearly  bought  scientific  method'*  left, 
it  is  not  unfair  to  assume  they  would  still  be 
light-hearted,  as  the  optimistic  householder 
was  who,  when  asked  in  court  if  the  fire  had 
totally  destroyed  his  house,  replied  in  a  cheer- 
ful way,  ''No,  we  have  the  cellar  left." 

They  seem  pleased  with  their  destructive 
and  reconstructive  work;  but  if  the  ''Bible 
is  the  greatest  benefit,"  as  Kant  says,  "the 
race  has  ever  experienced,"  and  "every  at- 
tempt to  belittle  it  or  to  do  away  with  it  en- 
tirely is  a  crime  against  humanity, "  then  they 
have  occasion  to  be  sad-hearted,  and  not  light- 
hearted. 

How  far  they  may  be  able  to  popularize 
their  rabbinical  production,  and  thus  further 
complete  this  "crime  against  humanity,"  no 
one  can  tell.  But  should  they  ever  succeed 
in  climbing  up  into  Moses'  seat,  holding  the 
176 


or  the  Residuum 

key  of  knowledge,  and  be  permitted  to  thrust 
their  new  Biblical,  Critical  Talmud  between 
the  common  people  and  the  true  Bible,  it 
would  be  the  darkest  day  the  Christian  world 
has  even  seen.  They  would  make  the  Word 
of  God  of  none  effect  by  their  new  traditions, 
as  Christ  claimed  the  scribes  and  the  Phari- 
sees did  by  their  old  traditions.  They  would 
give  those  who  ask  for  bread  a  stone,  and 
those  who  ask  for  fish  a  serpent. 


12 


A  Defective  Method 
Unassured  Results 


Science  falsely  so  called."— Paul. 


A  Defective  Method 
Unassured  Results 

The  term  ^^  scientific  method"  is  very  fre- 
quently used  these  days  by  an  affected  schol- 
arship to  designate  the  mode  of  procedure 
of  the  higher  criticism  in  dealing  with  the 
Bible.  They  speak  of  it  as  something  very 
new,  mysterious,  and  magical.  It  is,  however, 
nothing  but  the  old,  familiar  inductive 
method,  and  stands  for  the  collecting  and  ar- 
ranging of  facts  and  the  reaching  of  valid 
conclusions  through  them.  The  value  of  these 
conclusions  will  depend  largely  upon  the  care 
exercised  in  gathering  and  comparing  the 
facts,  and  the  exactness  with  which  each  is 
weighed  and  measured. . 

This  scientific  or  inductive  method  does 
not  rest  in  scientific  theories  or  guesses  or 
181 


A  Defective  Method 

opinions.  It  reaches  verified  knowledge. 
'  ^  Science  is  ascertained  facts. ' ' 

Christian  scholars  have  no  objection  to  the 
use  of  a  true  scientific  method  in  Biblical 
study,  no  matter  how  modern  the  appliances- 
may  be.  They  use  it  themselves,  and  claim 
that  when  employed  thoroughly  the  absolute 
integrity  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  is  fully  vin- 
dicated. 

Their  great  objection  to  the  higher  critical 
method  is  that  it  is  clearly  unscientific;  that 
it  is  worked  out  in  an  illogical  and  inconclu- 
sive manner ;  and  that  the  results  are  uncer- 
tain and  unsatisfactory.  Yet  the  impres- 
sion is  being  made  constantly  that  it  simply 
applies  intelligent  and  correct  processes 
which  have  been  successfully  used  in  other 
fields  of  literature,  into  a  careful,  unbiased 
examination  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  as  to 
their  sources,  dates,  authorship,  literary  and 
historical  character,  and  other  important  mat- 
ters. But  a  close  and  honest  investigation  of 
its  theories,  assumptions,  dogmas,  and  funda- 
182 


Unassured  Results 

mental  principles  and  workings  will  manifest 
the  system  in  a  very  different  light.  It  will 
be  seen  that  these  followers  of  Eichhorn  and 
students  of  Spinoza,  Ewald,  Hegel,  Vatke, 
Baur,  Graf,  Kuenen,  and  Wellhausen  are 
really  working  out  speculative,  philosophic, 
and  scientific  theories  and  principles.  In 
doing  this  they  adopt  new  views  respecting 
inspiration,  miracles,  prophecy,  and  various 
doctrines.  All  these  theories  and  principles 
and  ideas  they  arrange  and  adjust  to  each 
other,  so  as  to  work  in  harmony  and  to  pro- 
duce results  which  they  claim  are  as  exact 
and  certain  as  that  of  a  chemical  formula  or 
a  mechanical  device.  Indeed,  we  may  look 
upon  the  system  as  a  machine  which,  from  its 
first  invention  by  Astruc  or  Eichhorn,  has 
been  gradually  developed  and  improved  until 
it  has  been  brought  to  its  present  condition 
of  marvelous  efficiency.  They  say  it  does  its 
work  with  as  much  ease  and  efficiency  as  a 
McCormick  harvester;  and  that  it  has  cut 
down  much  grain  in  Old  Testament  fields  al- 
183 


A  Defective  Method 

ready.  It  promises,  judging  from  the  work 
so  far  accomplished,  to  do  just  as  effective 
work  on  New  Testament  ground,  where  at  one 
time  it  was  supposed  it  could  do  nothing,  be- 
cause of  the  sacred  nature  of  the  soil,  and  the 
more  rugged  character  of  the  rocky  facts  that 
covered  it.  It  is  doing  what  it  was  intended 
to  do.  What  surprises  one  is  that  it  should 
be  so  destructive  in  its  results  under  the 
manipulations  of  men  who  make  a  great  show 
of  orthodoxy. 

Considered  as  a  process  and  worked  by 
these,  its  deceptiveness  and  dangerousness  lie 
somewhat  in  the  esoteric  meanings  it  gives 
to  words,  the  evangelical  phrases  with  which 
it  garbs  its  naturalistic  speculations,  its  many 
half  truths,  its' prof essed  respect  for  the  su- 
pernatural as  such,  and  the  cardinal  doc- 
trines, its  obtrusive  display  of  human  opin- 
ions, and  the  seeming  opportunity  it  offers 
for  independent  and  intelligent  research.  Its 
promoters  and  advocates  decorate  each 
other's  brows  with  an  aureole  of  erudition; 
184 


Unassured  Results 

and  they  all  seem  to  agree  witli  Napoleon  in 
thinking  that  great  success  lies  in  a  constant 
great  noise. 

The  honest  truth-seeker,  however,  who, 
charmed  by  its  enchantments,  enters  its  laby- 
rinthine ways,  soon  finds  himself  under  the 
control  of  a  masterful  system,  and  treading 
paths  he  never  expected  to  follow.  The  road 
opens  before  him,  and  if  he  would  return  he 
feels  something  pushing  him  from  behind.  It 
is  not  long  usually  till  he  reaches  the  end  of 
the  way,  and  he  finds  himself  facing  an  abyss 
—agnosticism,  or  at  best  naturalism.  A  sys- 
tem that  deceives  those  who  trust  themselves 
to  its  guidance,  or  leads  its  votaries  to  deceive 
others,  can  not  be  a  superior  one.  This  acts 
both  ways.  It  not  only  entraps  unwary  truth- 
seekers  in  its  cobwebs,  but  many  of  its  ex- 
ponents advise  their  students  to  accept  its 
results,  but  not  to  preach  them.  Honest 
teachers  are  not  afraid  to  have  their  views 
made  public. 

Any  one  who  will  trace  the  history  of  lit- 
185 


A  Defective  Method 

erary  and  historical  criticisms  for  the  last 
century  must  conclude  with  W.  Robertson 
Nicoll,  a  distinguished  writer  who  starts  out 
as  a  higher  critic,  but  fails  to  follow  on  to 
logical  conclusions,  when  he  says,  ^  ^  There  are 
very  few  real  principles  in  criticism,  princi- 
ples that  can  be  depended  upon.''*  This  is 
certainly  true  in  regard  to  English  literature 
where  the  exploits  of  the  critics  have  for  the 
most  part  been  absolute  failures,  when  the 
real  worth  of  their  principles  and  methods 
could  be  fairly  tested. 

It  is  just  as  true  respecting  Biblical  crit- 
icism. The  critics  themselves,  especially  in 
Germany,  are  beginning  to  see  this.  Pro- 
fessor Eduard  Konig,  of  Bonn,  a  critic  of 
great  eminence,  in  a  book  recently  published, 
entitled  ^^The  Most  Recent  Principles  of  Old 
Testament  Criticism,"  attacks  vigorously  and 
ridicules  the  famous  nine  criteria  by  which 
so  many  critics  are  judging  the  text,  literary 
form,  and  contents  of  the  Old  Testament. 

*The  Church's  One  Foundation,  p.  78. 

186 


Unassured  Results 

'^But  what  is  practice  in  interpretation,"  lie 
asks,  among  other  things,  ^4f  that  interpre- 
tation is  not  practiced  in  accordance  with  cor- 
rect laws!"  The  theories  and  principles  of 
Wellhansen  are  exposed  as  vicious  by  Pro- 
fessor Klostermann,  of  the  University  of 
Kiel ;  and  Harnack,  a  critic  sui-generis,  makes 
war  against  the  methods  and  many  of  the 
most  important  results  of  the  other  scholars. 

Professor  W.  H.  Green,  of  Princeton,  an 
anti-higher  critic,  who  has  never  been  an- 
swered, applied  the  same  criteria  by  which 
.he  higher  critics  attempted  to  prove  the  com- 
posite character  of  the  Pentateuch  to  the 
parables  of  the  Prodigal  Son  and  the  Good 
Samaritan,  and  demonstrated  their  compound 
character  with  equal  success.  Another 
scholar  applied  the  same  principle  to 
Burns 's  poem,  ''To  a  Mountain  Daisy,"  and 
showed  that  Burns  could  not  have  composed 
the  greater  part  of  it. 

The  unscholarly  and  unscientific  character 
of  the  higher  critics  themselves  was  recently 
187 


A  Defective  Method 

made  manifest  in  the  case  of  the  Cairene  Ec- 
clesiasticns  document,  to  which  Professor 
D.  S.  Margolionth,*  of  Oxford  University, 
calls  special  attention.  All  the  leading  He- 
brew scholars  claimed  that  this  document, 
which  was  found  a  little  before  the  year  1900, 
belonged  to  the  second  century  B.  C,  and  that 
it  was  the  one  from  which  ^  *  the  existing  Greek 
and  Syriac  translations  were  derived. '^  In 
their  dissecting  and  dating  of  the  document 
they  used  the  same  line  of  principles  and 
theories  that  they  use  in  dealing  with  the 
Bible.  To  their  utter  disgust  and  confusion 
it  was  soon  proven  that  they  were  all  wrong, 
and  that  it  was  a  forged  document,  and  that 
it  belonged  to  the  eleventh  century  A.  D.,  and 
had  been  compiled  out  of  the  existing  trans- 
lations. 

History  tells  us  that  in  the  days  when 
Neander,  Strauss,  and  Baur  were  at  their  best 
a  humble  German  pastor  named  Meinhold 
retired  to  a  quiet  monastery,  and  while  there 

*  Lines  of  Defense  of  the  Biblical  Revelation,  p.  288. 

188 


Unassured  Results 

wrote  out  a  story  of  the  burning  of  a  witch 
just  after  the  time  of  Luther,  and  then  passed 
it  off  as  an  old  manuscript  which  he  had 
found  among  some  old  papers.  It  kept  the 
German  scholars  busy  for  a  year  or  more  ex- 
amining and  analyzing  the  document.  Then 
Meinhold  wrote :  ' '  Reliable  critics  you  are  of 
the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament  books.  The 
book  you  have  been  reading  and  praising  is 
the  production  of  my  own  brain  in  my  own 
study  in  the  last  &ve  years.  You  were  not 
able  to  discover  the  deception  and  detect  the 
forgery  in  your  own  language.  You  may  be 
dismissed  as  critics  of  the  books  of  the  New 
Testament. ' ' 

The  critics  have  bankrupted  their  re- 
sources in  trying  to  maintain  their  early  de- 
structive work  on  the  literature  and  history 
of  the  Romans,  Greeks,  Persians,  and  East 
Indians.  Recent  archaeological  discoveries, 
however,  have  compelled  them  to  change  their 
views  regarding  the  facts,  dates,  and  compo- 
sition of  the  various  forms  of  literature  in  al- 
189 


A  Defective  Method 

most  all  fields,  and  to  go  back  to  the  older  and 
more  conservative  and  traditional  opinions. 
Late  discoveries  in  Greece  have  led  them  to 
surrender  their  pet  theories  regarding  the 
composite  nature  of  the  Homeric  poems, 
which  Tennyson  combated  with  so  much  suc- 
cess, and  the  mythical  and  fictitious  character 
of  early  Greek  history.  Eoman  history, 
which  their  false  methods  led  them  to  regard 
as  a  fairy  tale,  they  now  conclude  for  the  most 
part  to  be  quite  reliable.  For  many  years 
Oriental  scholars  supposed  Buddha  to  be  a 
Sun-myth.  Two  monuments,  however,  as  old 
as  300  years  B.  C,  discovered  recently,  fully 
restore  his  historical  character.  Even  as 
prominent  a  higher  critic  as  Peters  acknowl- 
edges that  recent  archaeological  discoveries 
have  led  the  leading  scholars  of  to-day  to  push 
back  the  dates  of  the  sacred  books,  to  accept 
the  traditional  view  in  a  modified  form,  and 
to  maintain  unity  of  authorship.  These  finds 
have  been  more  damaging  to  the  conclusions 
of  Biblical  critics,  than  to  those  working  in 
190 


Unassured  Results 

any  other  field;  but  external  evidence  seems 
to  have  little  or  no  influence  on  their  minds. 
They  are  almost  wholly  led  by  subjective 
criteria.  Diction  and  style  and  the  historical 
imagination  have  more  weight  with  them  than 
the  oft-repeated  statements  of  Scripture  or 
the  many  facts  brought  to  light  by  the  spade 
of  the  antiquarian. 

Notwithstanding  those  amenable  to  rea- 
son have  been  compelled  to  admit  that  many 
of  their  former  claims  against  the  historicity 
of  the  Bible  have  no  foundation  whatever. 
They  reported  years  ago  that  the  flood  was 
a  legend;  that  Abraham  was  a  tribal 
nebulosity;  that  his  battle  with  the  kings 
was  a  fable;  that  Melchizedek,  Chedor- 
laomer,  Amraphel,  Sargon,  and  Belshazzar 
were  fictions ;  that  the  Hittites  never  existed 
as  a  civilized  people;  that  the  Babylonians 
of  Abraham's  day  were  barbarians;  and  the 
Egyptians  of  Moses'  day  illiterate.  Even 
George  Adam  Smith  said  in  his  Yale  lectures, 
**  Archaeology  contributes  the  results  that 
191 


A  Defective  Method 

Moses  did  not  know  how  to  read  or  write."* 
But  scholarly  men  who  have  used  the  best 
appliances  for  reaching  ^'assured  results'' 
have  proven  that  these  and  multitudes  of 
other  claims  are  utterly  false. 

Professor  F.  Hommel,  the  eminent  philol- 
ogist, of  Munich  University,  after  showing  in 
a  masterly  manner  that  the  Pentateuch  must 
have  been  written  as  the  Bible  assumes,  be- 
cause of  the  many  archaeological  and  philo- 
logical confirmations,  refers  to  lists  of  names 
in  Numbers,  saying:  ^^ These  lists  have  been 
shown  by  the  external  evidence  of  tradition 
preserved  in  inscriptions  of  the  second  mil- 
lennium B.  C.  to  be  genuine  and  trustworthy 
documents,  before  which  historical  theories 
built  up  by  modern  critics  of  the  Pentateuch 
must  collapse  irretrievably,  "f  ^^Once  more, 
therefore,"  to  use  the  words  of  Professor 
A.  H.  Sayce,  of  Oxford,  ^Hhe  light  that  has 
come  from  the  monuments  of  the  past  has 


*  stenographic  Report,  Zlon's  Herald. 
+The  Ancient  Hebrew  Tradition,  p.  801. 

192 


Unassured  Results 

been  fatal  to  the  pretensions  of  critical  skep- 
ticism. It  is  not  the  discoveries  of  the  higher 
criticism,  but  the  old  traditions  that  have  been 
confirmed  by  archaeological  research/' 

Professor  D.  Gr.  Lyon,  of  Harvard  Univer- 
sity, an  Assyriologist  of  much  repute,  refer- 
ring to  Delitzsch's  late  extravagant  and  false 
representation  of  Babylonian  discoveries, 
claims  that  one  of  the  delights  of  Assyrian 
study  is  its  many  incidental  confirmations  of 
Biblical  history. 

^^If  any  one  has  lost  faith  in  the  Bible," 
to  use  the  words  of  Professor  Hilprecht,  of 
Pennsylvania  University,  one  of  the  most  dis- 
tinguished archaeologists  of  to-day,  *^let  him 
go  to  Babylon,  and  he  will  find  it  again.'' 

Dr.  Albert  T.  Clay,  Curator  of  the  Baby- 
lonian department  of  the  same  university, 
holds  that  the  events  took  place  at  Babylon 
as  the  Bible  records,  and  not  as  the  critics 
have  contended;  that  the  lowest  excavations 
show  civilization  in  advanced  stages,  and  that 
there  is  every  reason  to  believe  that  future 
13  193 


A  Defective  Method 

excavations  will  bring  to  light  the  most,  if  not 
all  of  the  history  recorded  in  the  Old  Tes- 
tament. 

Many  of  the  leading  New  Testament  crit- 
ics contended  for  a  long  time  that  none  of  the 
four  Gospels  had  any  existence,  except  as  oral 
tradition,  prior  to  the  third,  or  at  the  earliest 
the  second  century.  The  evidence  which  has 
been  produced  of  late  years  to  the  contrary 
has,  however,  forced  most  of  them  to  recede 
from  that  position;  and  now  the  question  is 
put  beyond  dispute  by  the  positive  testimony 
of  the  famous*  Sinaitic  palimpsest  manuscript 
discovered  in  1896,  and  dated  150  A.  D.,  or 
earlier,  and  containing  the  four  Gospels  in 
Syriac,  which  proves  that  their  contention 
was  wholly  wrong,  and  that  they  are  in  error 
in  claiming  that  the  Gospel  of  John  was  not 
held  by  the  early  Church  of  equal  rank  with 
Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke.  Some  are  wonder- 
ing what  the  critics  would  do  should  an  anti- 
quarian's spade  turn  over  the  books  of  the 
entire  New  Testament,  with  dates  about  80 
194 


Unassured  Results 

A.  D.  But  we  may  be  sure  that,  being  like 
the  Antediluvians,  full  of  ^^  every  imagina- 
tion,*' they  would  pass  their  defeat  in  silence 
and  proceed  to  evolve  new  theories  to  distract 
the  Church  for  another  generation.  One  who 
has  taken  the  pains  to  count  up  their  exploded 
theories,  claims  that  they  number,  within  a 
limited  period,  over  four  hundred. 

Camille  Flammarion,  the  eminent  French 
astronomer,  was  for  many  years  a  pro- 
hounced  Spiritualist,  and  believed  that  the 
spirit  of  Galileo  was  his  guide  and  informer. 
Some  time  ago,  as  reported  by  the  press,  he 
turned  his  back  on  Spiritualism  and  the  spirit 
of  Galileo,  because  the  latter  told  him  that 
Jupiter  had  four  satellites  and  Saturn  eight, 
while  really  Jupiter  has  five  and  Saturn  nine. 
Flammarion  looked  through  a  modern  tele- 
scope with  his  own  eyes  and  saw  things  as 
they  are,  and  concluded  that  the  alleged  spirit 
of  Galileo  was  a  champion  liar.  Many  stu- 
dents are  beginning  to  detect  the  false  repre- 
sentation of  higher  criticism,  and  not  a  few 
195 


A  Defective  Method 

have  openly  renounced  the  system.  Pro- 
fessor A.  H.  Sayce,  the  famous  archaeologist, 
once  an  ardent  higher  critic,  gives  a  long  list 
of  reasons  which  he  says  ^  ^  preclude  me  from 
offering  any  longer  the  same  welcome  to  the 
method  and  conclusions  of  the  Higher  Crit- 
icism that  I  was  prepared  to  accord  to  them 
fifteen  years  ago. ' '  Principal  Cave  also  ven- 
tures to  question  the  higher  critical  author- 
ities, which  he  tells  us  he  ^^some  years  ago 
cordially,  nay,  enthusiastically,  believed  in.'' 
^'But  maturer,''  he  adds,  ^^and  more  pro- 
tracted examination  has  led  me  utterly  to  dis- 
trust the  more  serious  results  announced  by 
these  authorities."  One  only  wonders  that 
more  scholars  do  not  renounce  a  system 
whose  ^^ assured  results''  in  so  many  cases 
have  been  proven  worthless. 

But  surely  they  have  some  vigorous  and 
substantial  facts  to  support  the  conclusions 
they  have  reached.  This  is  serious  work, 
being  done  by  professedly  great  scholars; 
work  that  is  not  only  to  turn  Israel's  history 
196 


Unassured  Results 

on  its  head,  but,  if  proved  correct,  to  upset 
all  our  Christian  creeds,  revolutionize  our 
Churches,  and  rewrite  our  Bible. 

One  waits  with  much  interest  to  see  what 
new  rugged  facts  they  have  found,  what  new 
documents  they  have  unearthed,  or  what 
Scriptural  cryptogram  they  have  deciphered ; 
but  he  waits  in  vain.  He  wades  through  the 
writings  of  Driver,  George  Adam  Smith, 
Duff,  Wellhausen,  Kuenen,  Harper,  Toy, 
Briggs,  and  Haupt  and  others  for  anything 
in  the  form  of  evidence  against  the  genuine- 
ness, authenticity,  or  general  credibility  of 
the  Bible,  which  is,  even  by  their  own  claim, 
stronger  than  a  probability.  Gardner  com- 
plains because  ^^ Church  men'*  ask  for  any- 
thing more  than  *^  probable  evidence." 
'  ^  They  set  us, '  *  he  groans  out,  ^  ^  an  impossible 
task.*'  His  explanation  is:  ^^In  ancient 
history  everything  rests  on  comparison  of 
probabilities. ' ' 

Is  there  a  judge  in  this  Eepublic  but 
**  Judge  Lynch,'*  that  would  hang  a  worthless 
197 


A  Defective  Method 

Negro  tramp  on  simply  ^'probable  evidence*' 
—the  evidence  upon  which  the  weather  man 
rests  his  prognostications? 

Yet  on  snch  evidence  they  would  change 
the  entire  order  and  character  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  and  ask  us  to  surrender  our  confi- 
dence in  their  integrity,  when  we  believe  them 
to  be  supernaturally  inspired,  and  are  resting 
our  hope  of  eternal  life  on  the  infallible  char- 
acter of  the  promises,  truths,  and  facts  which 
they  record.  They  transform  the  Book  of 
Jonah  into  an  allegory ;  the  Book  of  Ruth  into 
an  idyl ;  the  Book  of  Daniel  into  fiction,  and 
the  writer  into  a  forger ;  the  Books  of  Chron- 
icles into  manufactured  history;  and  other 
books  of  the  Bible  in  a  similar  way ;  and  give 
us  all  kinds  of  reasons— tentative  sugges- 
tions, conjectures,  suppositions,  a  priori  as- 
sumptions, tendencies,  theories,  and  possi- 
bilities, but  no  facts;  nothing  stronger  than 
prohahilities. 

They  have  hunted  everywhere  for  evi- 
dence—especially among  their  **feelings'* 
198 


Unassured  Results 

and  *  intuitions ;  ^ '  have  dug  about  the  roots 
and  examined  the  stems  of  the  Aramaic,  He- 
braic, Arabic,  Assyrian,  Babylonian,  Egyp- 
tian, Greek,  and  Roman  languages;  have 
scrutinized  old  documents ;  have  studied  clay 
tablets ;  have  deciphered  hieroglyphics ;  have 
explored  tombs ;  have  unearthed  ruins ;  have 
searched  dust  heaps,  and  have  even  looked 
into  the  Bible  itself  with  their  microscopes; 
and  though  they  have  furnished  us  with  hu- 
man opinions  many  yards  long,  which  are  not 
worth  a  straw  as  evidence,  they  have  not  fur- 
nished us  with  even  one  well  established  fact 
against  the  integrity  of  the  Word  of  God; 
nothing,  according  to  their  own  confession, 
stronger  than  probabilities,  which  at  the  best 
can  prove  nothing  with  any  certainty. 

Their  claim  that  such  evidence  is  cumu- 
lative has  no  force.  No  one  can  make  up  a 
total  probability  by  advancing  arguments 
*^each  of  which  is  improbable  in  itself,''  no 
matter  how  much  he  may  increase  their  num- 
ber. The  probabilities  they  offer  are  to  the 
199 


A  Defective  Method 

most  sane  and  reverent  investigators  palp- 
able improbabilities.  These  are  very  numer- 
ous and  unsatisfactory,  and  weary  the  aver- 
age student,  who  wants  certainties  on  which 
to  rest  his  faith.  If  some  profound  scholars 
and  expert  reasoners  can  repose  their  souls 
on  a  revelation  which  is  determined  by  a 
*^ balance  of  probabilities,''  the  common  peo- 
ple are  utterly  unable  to  do  so. 

Scarcely  any  of  the  questions  raised  now 
are  new  to  the  intelligent  student,  whose 
memory  goes  back  twenty-five  or  thirty  years, 
or  who  informs  himself  through  books  pub- 
lished as  far  back  as  those  times,  excepting 
the  application  of  the  historical  development 
hypotheses  to  the  entire  Bible.  Matthew 
Arnold's  ^^ Literature  and  Dogma,"  pub- 
lished in  1873,  would  be  a  fresh  and  interest- 
ing book  to  any  youthful  higher  critic  of  to- 
day, but  for  the  fact  that  he  would  see  from 
the  title-page  that  it  was  in  circulation  before 
he  was  born.  To  the  men  well  along  in  life 
who  have  been  more  or  less  familiar  with  the 
200 


Unassured  Results 

skepticism  of  the  past— with  the  philosoph- 
ical principles  of  Hegel,  the  development 
ideas  of  Banr,  the  mythical  views  of  Stranss, 
and  the  legendary  theories  of  Renan,  almost 
all  that  is  thought  to  be  fresh  and  up-to-date 
appears  very  stale,  moldy,  and  heavy  with 
age— a  simple  rehash.  And  they  claim  that 
these  critics  who  are  seeking  to  carry  their 
unhallowed  end,  under  the  disguise  of  science, 
and  even  in  ^^  official  religious  robes  to  pare 
away  the  carved  work  of  the  Temple  of  Eeve- 
lation  and  undermine  its  claim  to  Divine 
origin, ' '  are  by  no  means  original  as  to  their 
work  or  their  material;  that  they  have  ran- 
sacked all  the  infidel  graveyards  of  the  ages 
for  arguments ;  and  that  with  them  the  very 
bones  of  Porphyry  and  his  successors  are 
sacred  relics,  with  power  to  transform  his- 
tory into  romance,  prophecy  into  past  his- 
tory, and  facts  into  fables.  They  insist  that 
almost  all  this  disbelief  of  the  Bible,  together 
with  much  unconfessed  Universalism  and 
Unitarianism  which  is  inside  the  orthodox 
201 


A  Defective  Method 

Churches  of  to-day  was  outside  thirty  years 
ago ;  and  that  what  was  rank  unbelief  then,  is 
now  evangelical  Biblical  criticism  thrashing 
over  heretical,  musty  old  straw  with  an  im- 
proved modern  evolution  machine,  which  pro- 
duces more  dust  for  our  eyes  than  good  grain 
for  our  sacks. 

As  one  seeing  superstitious  Christians 
worshiping  the  bronze  statues  of  St.  Peter 
and  the  Virgin  at  Eome,  once  the  images  of 
Jupiter  and  Venus,  naturally  exclaims,  *  *  This 
is  Christianized  paganism,*'  these  scholars, 
viewing  all  this,  cry  out,  *^This  is  orthodox- 
ized  unbelief  J' 

Scientific  scholars,  however,  object  to 
higher  criticism,  not  simply  because  it  is  old, 
or  new,  or  heretical,  but  on  account  of  its  un- 
scientific character  and  its  utter  failure  to 
sustain  its  contentions.  After  subjecting  the 
results  of  the  critical  school  to  searching 
scientific  tests.  Professor  Sayce,  in  his  new 
book,  concludes:  ^^It  follows  from  all  this 
that  the  ^critical'  method  is  scientifically  un- 
202 


Unassured  Results 

sound,  and  its  results,  accordingly,  will  not 
stand  the  application  of  a  scientific  test.  It 
is  quite  as  mucli  an  artificial  creation  as  was 
the  Ptolemaic  System.  .  .  .  And  the  in- 
crease of  knowledge  has  not  been  favorable 
to  results  of  ^  criticism. '  It  has  proved  them 
to  be  nothing  but  the  baseless  fabric  of  sub- 
jective imagination. ' ' 

Dr.  John  Smith  is  of  the  same  mind.  He 
claims  that,  though  higher  criticism  has  sac- 
rificed everything  to  the  so-called  scientific 
evolution  theory,  *^she  has  been  deserted  by 
the  science  for  which  she  has  sacrificed  so 
much.  At  least  she  can  not  allege  to-day  the 
support  of  an  undisputed  scientific  belief.'' 


203 


The  New  Scholarship 
and  the  Pretentious 
Critics 


''I  beseech  you,  brethren,  by  the  bowels  of  Christ, 
to  think  that  you  may  be  wrong. — Cromwell. 


The  New  Scholarship 
and  the  Pretentious 
Critics 

The  unbelief  of  a  century  ago  had  usu- 
ally rough  words  as  well  as  rough  treatment 
for  Holy  Writ;  but  it  is  now  somewhat 
changed  in  its  manner,  if  not  in  its  methods. 
As  represented  by  the  '  *  New  Scholarship, ' '  it 
has  now  often  fair  words  and  complimentary 
and  even  patronizing  speech  for  what  it  re- 
fers to  in  high-sounding  terms  as  the  ^^  Sacred 
Oracles,''  the  ^* Divine  Eevelation,"  or  the 
*  ^  Divine  Library ; ' '  but  when  it  comes  to  deal- 
ing closely  with  the  Bible  there  is  the  same 
old,  rough,  rude,  and  ruthless  usage,  and  free- 
lance style  of  attack.  Its  reverence  for  the 
Scriptures  is  to  be  judged,  I  think,  by  its 
treatment  of  them,  rather  than  by  its  profes- 
sions of  respect.  When  a  critic  writes  in  his 
Preface,  ' '  The  following  pages  will  be  found 
207 


The  New  Scholarship  and 

to  be  reverent  and  well-considered  statement 
of  the  views  presented/'*  and  then  proceeds 
to  present  views  which  utterly  destroy  the 
historicity  of  most  of  the  Old  Testament,  sifts 
it  of  so  much  that  is  prophetic  and  miraculous 
and  substantially  represents  many  of  its  au- 
thors as  forgers  and  deceivers,  can  the  reader 
be  blamed  if  all  this  suggests  to  him  General 
Joab's  kindly  greeting,  while  the  daggered 
hand  of  the  fierce  warrior  was  feeling  for 
General  Abner's  fifth  rib?  Indeed,  the  real 
higher  critic,  whatever  he  may  say  in  praise 
of  the  ^^  sublime  Eevelation,"  takes  it  as  an 
essential  principle  that  he  must  lay  aside  all 
awe  and  treat  the  Bible  as  any  other  form  of 
literature;  and  when  he  gets  down  to  work 
he  has  seemingly  no  more  respect  for  God's 
Word  than  a  French  Eevolutionist  would 
have  for  a  discrowned  king,  or  an  antiquary 
for  a  heap  of  rubbish.  And  he  has  still  less 
respect  for  those  who  call  attention  to  the 
sacred  character  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  or 

-Terry,  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  p.  7. 

208 


Pretentious  Critics 

who  attempt  to  defend  them.  He  always 
fights  such  in  swashbuckler  style,  and  woe  to 
the  ignoramus  who  comes  within  reach  of  his 
scholarly  battleax!  He  is  very  sensitive  to 
criticism  himself,  but  takes  great  liberties 
with  dead  heroes.  He  cuts  up  and  quarters 
Moses  and  robs  him  of  most  of  his  glory,  and 
hews  Isaiah  into  pieces  as  if  he  were  another 
Agag ;  but  woe  to  the  man  that  would  question 
his  rights,  or  circumscribe  his  liberties,  or 
dare  rob  him  of  one  beam  of  his  higher  crit- 
ical glory!  He  evidently  imagines  that  all 
should  think  as  he  thinks,  and  in  the  boldest 
manner  asserts  that  all  who  do  not  are  un- 
scholarly  or  defenders  of  ^  illiteracy. '  *  He 
mocks  at  ^^Bibliolatry,"  forgetting  seem- 
ingly that  it  may  be  better  to  worship  a  book 
than  to  worship  one's  self  or  to  make  a  fetich 
of  scholarship. 

A  true  scholar  no  doubt  belongs  to  the 

world's  best  aristocracy;  but  he  is  usually 

modest,  and  keeps  in  mind  Voltaire's  thought 

that  an  educated  man  should  be  unwilling  to 

14  209 


The  New  Scholarship  and 

view  the  world  from  the  spire  of  his  own  par- 
ticular steeple. 

It  may  not  he  out  of  place  for  me  to  sug- 
gest to  you,  dear  critics,  that  if  you  can  not 
admit  those  who  reject  your  dictum  into  your 
scholarly  ^^Four  Hundred,'^  you  should  at 
least  deal  gently  with  them,  and  not  answer 
their  arguments  with  opprobrious  epithets. 
^  ^  Ye  suffer  fools,  gladly  seeing  ye  yourselves 
are  wise. '  ^  Why  not  suffer  these  also  f  Many 
of  them  studied  with  you  in  the  same  univer- 
sities, and  received  their  honors  from  the 
same  institutions  of  learning.  You  may  have 
climbed  away  up  as  critics  far  above  them; 
but  why  claim  that  you  can  see  the  moss 
growing  on  their  bare,  bent.  Biblical  backs! 
They  are  presumptuous  enough  to  think  that 
they  can  see  as  far  into  the  millstone  of 
higher  criticism  as  the  men  who  pick  it.  They 
think  that  their  heads  are  even-balanced, 
though  they  may  not  be  as  high  up  or  as  lu- 
minous with  the  light  of  the  new  scholarship 
as  some  of  our  youthful  critics  of  threescore 
210 


Pretentious  Critics 

years  or  more  might  desire.  They  claim  also 
that  great  critics  are  not  always  great  schol- 
ars; that  Tom  Paine  was  a  great  critic,  and 
anticipated  more  than  three-fourths  of  the 
^* assured  results''  of  higher  criticism,  and 
yet  did  not  even  possess  a  Bible  when  he 
wrote  his  **Age  of  Eeason/'  It  may  be,  as 
they  say,  that  there  is  a  shade  of  affectation 
in  all  these  loud  claims  of  great  scholarship, 
for  why  should  you  imagine  that  the  scholars 
of  this  day  are  so  very  distinguished?  Is 
there  one  in  your  list  of  living  scholars  that 
can  be  compared  with  a  Eenan  or  a  Strauss 
as  to  genius,  or  to  a  Tom  Paine  as  to  clear 
logic,  or  to  a  Voltaire  as  to  wit  ?  What  thing 
of  importance  has  any  of  you  discovered? 
What  new  truth  have  you  revealed?  What 
old  important  error  have  you  newly  called 
attention  to  ?  What  do  you  give  us  that  you 
do  not  get  from  each  other,  and  what  do  any 
of  you  have  which  did  not  come  from  men  who 
were  living  forty  years  ago  or  more,  besides 
your  thorough  working  pet  evolution  theory? 
211 


The  New  Scholarship  and 

There  are  hundreds  of  men  of  the  most 
distinguished  scholarship  who  are  recognized 
as  experts  in  their  various  departments  of 
learning  or  research  who  have  no  sympathy 
with  you  in  your  Bihlical  views,  and  yet  are 
your  equals  in  every  regard,  if  not  your  su- 
periors. You  ignore  them,  and  claim  every- 
thing in  regard  to  scholarship.  Your  exag- 
gerated boastings  remind  us  of  the  Boston 
patriot  who,  when  asked  how  far  his  Nation's 
boundaries  extended  into  the  Atlantic,  re- 
plied, ^^All  the  way  across. '*  But  nothing  is 
proven  by  an  array  of  learning  on  either  side. 
If  all  the  scholars  of  the  world  were  shown 
to  be  disbelievers  in  the  Christian  religion,  it 
would  not  prove  it  to  be  untrue.  It  would 
simply  prove  that  the  scholarship  of  the 
world  was  opposed  to  Christianity. 

If  you  could  demonstrate  beyond  a  doubt 
that  all  the  scholars  in  the  world  were  higher 
critics,  that  would  not  prove  the  rest  of  the 
world  wrong.  Things  have  stood  in  such  re- 
lations before.  The  ^  *  best  scholarship ' '  stood 
212 


Pretentious  Critics 

against  Christ  at  Jerusalem;  against  Paul 
on  Mars '  Hill ;  against  Wyclif  and  his  peasant 
priests  all  over  England ;  and  against  Wesley 
at  Oxford.  It  stands  to-day  for  the  super- 
stitions of  the  Greek  Church  in  Eussia;  for 
papal  infallibility  and  Eomish  mummeries 
throughout  Italy  and  over  half  of  Christen- 
dom ;  for  ritualism  in  England ;  for  infidelity 
in  France;  and  for  rationalism  in  Germany 
and  Holland.  History  teaches  us  that  reason 
and  argument  and  revelation  prove  what  per- 
tains to  religion,  rather  than  any  array  of 
scholarship.  The  Christian  believer  has  no 
fear,  even  if  the  world's  learning  should  be 
against  him;  but  he  covets  the  service  of  the 
scholar  for  His  Master,  and  consequently  he 
will  pray  for  an  enlightened  and  sanctified 
scholarship  to  lead  the  Church  to  fresh  vic- 
tories. 

These  pretentious  critics  not  only  claim, 

in  the  most  arrogant  manner,  to  monopolize 

the  scholarship  of  the  world;  but  assume  an 

authority  for  scholarship  beyond  that  of  any 

213 


The  New  Scholarship  and 

Churcli  council  or  the  most  infallible  of  the 
popes.  They  seem  not  only  to  seek  to  do 
what  the  schoolmen  tried  to  accomplish  in 
the  Middle  Ages,  namely,  to  rationalize 
dogma;  but  to  create  a  new  dogmatism,  and 
to  transfer,  as  the  schoolmen  did  for  three 
centuries  or  more,  authority  from  the  Church 
to  the 

University. 
A  few  years  ago  it  was  urged  that  the 
Christian  Churches  should  have  their  own 
colleges  and  theological  schools,  so  as  to  im- 
part a  Christian  character  to  education.  Now 
Dr.  Harper,  voicing  the  aspirations  of  certain 
** liberal''  educators,  announces  that  neither 
the  State  nor  the  Church  has  any  right  to  con- 
trol a  professor's  investigations  or  conclu- 
sions. President  Hyde,  at  a  notable  gather- 
ing at  Northwestern  University  recently, 
said:  **For  a  bishop,  minister,  trustee,  or 
pious  layman  to  interfere  with  the  teaching 
of  a  competent  university  professor  on  the- 
ological grounds,  is  as  wanton  and  brutal  an 
214 


Pretentious  Critics 

act  as  it  would  be  for  a  prize  fighter  to  step 
into  the  pulpit  and  knock  down  the  minister 
because  he  happened  to  have  a  bigger  fist.'' 
Our  educators  and  Biblical  scholars  want 
large  liberty,  but  they  are  not  satisfied  to  be 
left  alone ;  they  seem  to  think  that  all  author- 
ity in  all  denominational  matters  that  pertain 
to  education  inheres  in  them,  for  they  have 
organized  themselves  into  a  ^  ^  Eeligious  Edu- 
cational Association, ' '  with  Dr.  Harper  as  the 
inspiring  spirit,  whose  object,  as  it  is  gener- 
ally understood,  is  to  control  our  institutions 
of  learning,  and  leaven  them,  and  even  our 
Sunday-schools  and  our  religious  literature, 
with  their  peculiar  Biblical  and  liberal  views. 
Is  it  possible  that  in  these  days  of  merging 
and  gigantic  combinations  we  are  to  have  a 
great 

Educational  and  Biblical  Trust, 

with  the  trade-mark  Scholarship?    If  so,  it 
will  be  the  most  dangerous  monopoly  ever  de- 
vised; a  greater  menace  to  religion  than  the 
215 


The  New  Scholarship  and 

Steel,  Sugar,  Steamship,  or  Standard  Oil 
Trusts  can  possibly  be  to  trade  or  commerce. 
It  would  be  the  merging  of  all  things  intel- 
lectual and  spiritual  into  the  grip  of  a  close 
corporation,  which  would  attempt  to  furnish 
the  public  with  the  results  of  their  wonderful 
Cabinet  labors  from  time  to  time.  And  woe 
to  the  land  whose  educational  leaders  form 
a  *^ Guild!''  *^It  means  religious  stagnation 
and  hypocrisy,  ecclesiastical  mummery  and 
shameless  nepotism;  it  means  theological 
craft  and  quibble,  spiritual  desolation  and 
death ;  it  means  Judaism  again,  or  the  dreary 
scholasticism  of  the  Middle  Ages."  But  the 
times  seem  ripe  for  such  a  movement.  Our 
little  scholars  appear  to  be  paralyzed  in  the 
presence  of  so  much  pretentious  critical 
learning,  and  hesitate  to  quote  Scripture  or 
repeat  the  Creed  until  they  learn  what  por- 
tions of  the  Divine  Word  these  Biblical  mas- 
ter mechanics  who  take  it  to  pieces  and  then 
reconstruct  it  shall  stamp  with  their  approval 
or  disapproval.  They  hesitate  even  to  say 
216 


Pretentious  Critics 

their  prayers  until  they  find  out  through  these 
experts,  who  appear  to  be  a  self-constituted 
Biblical  Clearing-house  as  to  what  prom- 
ises will  be  honored  and  what  protested  at 
the  Bank  of  Heaven,  and  as  to  the  nature  and 
amount  of  their  deposits.  Why  not  regard 
these  Eabbinical  teachers  as  literary  and  crit- 
ical deities?  Possibly  some  of  them  would 
object,  but  the  authority  which  most  of  them 
assume  would  seem  to  require  it.  Dr.  Briggs 
says:  ^'That  portion  of  the  Bible  that  they 
[scholars]  decide  is  the  Word  of  God  is  in- 
spired; the  rest  is  not.'^  Having  brushed 
aside  as  so  many  cobwebs  all  the  traditions 
of  men  and  the  authority  of  the  Church,  and 
having  punctured  that  bubble,  the  infallibility 
of  the  Bible,  the  bulk  of  them  claim  to  have 
reached  infallible  results,  and  are  prepared 
not  only  to  accept  perfect  freedom  for  them- 
selves, but  to  demand  universal  submission 
to  their  decrees.  The  odor  of  modern  schol- 
arship is  about  them,  and  men  must  sub- 
mit to  them,  or  be  academically  ostracized. 
217 


The  New  Scholarship  and 

Even  Holy  Scripture  must  not  stand  in  the 
way  of  their  magisterial  utterances.  Pro- 
fessor H.  G.  Mitchell  evidently  thinks  so,  for 
he  tells  us  that  the  '^outcome  of  the  investi- 
gation*' as  to  the  authorship  of  the  Penta- 
teuch which  he  has  made,  *4s  that  although 
in  parts  of  the  Bible  the  Pentateuch  is  attrib- 
uted to  Moses,  and  such  was  for  centuries 
the  teaching  of  the  Christian  as  well  as  the 
Jewish  Church,  the  doctrine  is  based  upon  a 
mistaken  tradition,''  and  that  ^^this  conclu- 
sion" will  have  to  be  accepted,  however  it 
may  aifect  the  authority  of  the  Pentateuch."* 
Dr.  Briggs  is  of  the  same  mind.  Eeferring 
to  such  of  us  as  have  the  temerity  to  reject 
this  new  *^ science"  and  its  results,  he  uses 
these  words :  ^  ^  If  these  persons  are  unwilling 
to  make  investigations  themselves,  they  must 
be  content  to  abide  the  decisions  that  may 
be  reached  by  scholars."  So  now  we  "have 
the  final  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
learning ;  submit  yourselves  to  your  masters ; 

*  World  Before  Abraham,  p.  66. 

218 


Pretentious  Critics 

enter  their  school;  work  their  system;   or 
humbly  accept  their  dogmas. 

We  are  without  question,  if  they  are  cor- 
rect, in  a  very  awkward  situation;  between 
Charybdis  and  Scylla ;  between  an  investiga- 
tion of  the  whole  subject  and  the  acceptance 
of  their  false  conclusions.  The  investigation, 
according  to  their  representations,  is  a  whirl- 
pool, very  deep,  almost  bottomless.  Dr.  War- 
ren, ex-president  of  Boston  University,  in- 
forms us  that  the  questions  involved  are  so 
profound  and  difficult  that  ^^not  one  in  a  thou- 
sand among  mature  Christian  ministers  in 
any  country  is  equipped  with  the  learning  de- 
sirable, if  not  necessary,  for  their  discus- 
sion/' If  that  is  true,  the  ordinary  scholar 
should  not  attempt  to  sound  the  depths  of 
such  deeps;  for  though  he  might  wish  to  be 
steeped  to  the  lips  in  learning,  he  would  not 
wish  to  be  drowned.  There  are  probably 
some,  however,  who  would  esteem  it  a  luxury 
to  perish  in  scholastic  waters,  like  Prince 
Clarence  in  his  tub  of  Malmsey  wine. 
219 


The  New  Scholarship  and 

Then  there  is  the  Scylla  horn  of  the  di- 
lemma. The  people  who  allow  others  to  do 
their  thinking,  will  no  douht  eagerly  accept  of 
the  ** assured  results''  of  higher  criticism 
without  any  investigation,  and  be  at  once 
numbered  among  the  scholarly  ^^Four  Hun- 
dred ; ' '  but  others  will  hesitate  to  follow  them, 
remembering  that  if  the  blind  lead  the  blind 
both  are  likely  to  fall  into  the  ditch.  Men 
who  wish  to  be  neither  scholastically  drowned 
nor  to  be  Scripturally  ditched,  will  look  to  see 
if  they  can  not  avoid  both  horns  of  this  di- 
lemma. I  am  sure  they  can.  They  need 
neither  plunge  into  Charybdis  nor  perish  in 
Scylla.  If  they  wish,  they  can  make  use  of 
the  investigations  made  by  the  truly  learned, 
and  judge  regarding  these  questions  for 
themselves.  Or  if  they  do  not  seek  to  be  wise 
above  what  is  written  in  the  Book  itself,  and 
are  willing  to  accept  of  Jesus  Christ  as  abso- 
lute authority  respecting  Scripture  as  well  as 
other  things,  they  will  find  themselves  at  the 
end  of  all  perplexity,  for  upon  nothing  did 
220 


Pretentious  Critics 

He  teach  more  plainly  tlian  upon  that  matter. 
Professor  Howard  Osgood  holds  that  Christ 
settled  these  questions,  and  that  all  Christian 
scholars  must  abide  by  His  decisions.  I  shall 
refer  to  this  phase  of  the  question  further  on ; 
but  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  here,  for  myself, 
that  while  I  have  profound  respect  for  true 
scholarship,  I  account  the  opinions  of  the 
most  learned  of  all  the  ages  as  but  the  small 
dust  of  the  balances  when  weighed  against 
the  teachings  of  Jesus  Christ  regarding  any 
matter  great  or  small.  Scriptural  or  other- 
wise. ^^That  every  tongue  should  confess 
THAT  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord.'' 


Truer  Scholarship  and 
Better  Critics 


"  Thy  sons,  0  Zion,  against  thy  sons,  O  Greece  1  "- 
Zkchakiah  IX,  13. 


Truer  Scholarship  and 
Better  Critics 

It  is  never  wise  to  sneer  at  anything  be- 
cause it  lias  had  a  long  history,  or  to  attempt 
to  stigmatize  a  view  as  traditional  for  the 
reason  that  it  has  long  held  sway  in  the  minds 
of  men  generally.  To  be  wise  to-day,  one  has 
not  necessarily  to  turn  away  from  the  wisdom 
of  yesterday.  To  walk  in  the  best  path  does 
not  always  mean  to  find  a  new  road.  In  art 
the  old  masters  are  better  teachers  than  the 
new  Impressionists. 

There  is  no  reason  why  all  this  should  not 
be  as  applicable  to  Biblical  study  as  anything 
else;  nor  is  there  any  ground  for  branding 
any  one  as  a  ^'traditionalist,"  as  higher 
critics  do,  because  he  shares  with  the  Church 
in  all  its  history  a  belief  in  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures as  the  inspired  and  authoritative  Word 
of  God. 

Many  of  the  most  important  beliefs  we 
15  225 


Truer  Scholarship  and 

have  are  as  old,  so  far  as  we  know,  as  our 
race;  and  an  ardent  seeker  after  truth  may 
entertain  such  beliefs  as  intelligently,  and 
may  account  for  them  as  scientifically,  as  if 
they  were  entirely  new. 

Conservative  evangelical  Christian  schol- 
ars of  to-day  take  the  Bible  to  be  what  it 
claims  to  be,  and  what  God's  people  from  the 
first  believed  it  to  be,  not  merely  because 
that  view  is  traditional,  though  that  is  strong 
presumptive  proof  in  its  favor,  but  for  the 
reason  also  that  they  find  that  view  proven 
and  confirmed  by  the  most  sane  and  scientific 
ancient  and  modern  methods  of  criticism.  No 
one  should  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  Biblical 
criticism  is  not  the  creation  of  this  much  over- 
rated age,  and  that  it  should  not  be  meas- 
ured by  the  history  of  the  much  vaunted 
higher  criticism ;  but  that  so  far  as  it  is  valu- 
able and  really  scientific  it  is  an  aggregation 
of  exact  observations  and  verified  deductions, 
built  up  by  Biblical  scholars  during  all  the 
centuries. 

226 


Better  Critics 

The  number  of  eminent  men  of  deep  learn- 
ing and  sound  judgment  who  take  this  view, 
and  who  hold  closely  to  the  principle  that 
nothing  can  be  added  to  the  sum  of  Biblical 
criticism  which  is  not  supported  by  evidential 
facts,  is  large  and  at  present  growing.  They 
may  differ  in  minor  matters,  but  they  agree 
in  this  as  well,  that  the  '^ results"  of  higher 
criticism,  which  fill  such  a  large  place  in  its 
showcase,  are  not  ^^assured;''  consisting 
mainly  of  guesses,  opinions,  and  theories, 
and  that  the  integrity  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 
tures is  unaffected  by  its  many  destructive 
attacks. 

Professor  Howard  Osgood,  of  Rochester 
Baptist  Theological  Seminary,  thinks  the 
boast  of  the  higher  critics,  that  their  views 
concerning  the  Bible  are  supported  by  the 
bulk  of  the  Christian  scholarship  of  to-day,  is 
wholly  unwarranted.  While  not  denying  the 
scholarship  of  the  leaders,  he  seriously  ques- 
tions their  right  even  to  the  name  Christian. 
*^Can  that  be  called  Christian,"  he  asks, 
227 


Truer  Scholarship  and 

*^  which  contradicts  Christ  either  point  blank 
or  by  necessary  inference?  Is  the  most 
learned  man  a  Christian  simply  by  reason 
of  eating  the  bread  supplied  by  Christians, 
and  occupying  a  chair  founded  and  supported 
by  Christians  f  As  to  the  comparative  num- 
bers pro  et  con.  he  inquires:  '^Say  there  are 
one  hundred  critical  scholars  in  the  world; 
how  many  just  as  good  scholars  faithful  to 
Christ  are  there  in  the  140,000  ministers  in 
the  pulpit  in  the  United  States  T' 

It  is  well  to  keep  in  mind  in  this  connec- 
tion that  the  scholars  of  the  Roman  Cath- 
olic, the  Lutheran,  the  Dutch  Reformed,  aiid 
the  Presbyterian  Churches  in  this  country 
are  almost  a  unit  in  their  opposition  to  the 
theories  and  conclusions  of  higher  criticism. 
The  Presbyterian  Church  (North)  is  not  in- 
ferior, in  point  of  scholarship,  to  any  other 
Christian  body,  yet  its  General  Assembly, 
composed  of  the  flower  of  its  learning  and 
wisdom,  at  its  session  in  Minneapolis  adopted 
unanimously  the  following  unequivocal  utter- 
228 


Better  Critics 

ance:  '^It  is  a  fundamental  doctrine  of  the 
Word  of  God  and  the  Confession  of  Faith, 
that  the  Holy  Spirit  did  so  control  the  in- 
spired writers  in  their  composition  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  as  to  make  their  statements 
absolutely  truthful,''  and  much  more  of  the 
same  character. 

A  large  majority  of  the  scholars  in  all 
the  other  evangelical  bodies  maintain  sub- 
stantially the  same  attitude. 

I  mention  now  the  names  of  a  few  such 
who  are  known  as  critical  writers  in  Europe 
or  this  country,  selecting,  perhaps,  as  some 
may  think,  with  insufficient  discrimination: 
Dr.  Edersheim,  Dr.  A.  Zahn,  Mr.  John  Ken- 
nedy, Dr.  John  Smith,  Dr.  D.  S.  Gregory,  Sir 
Kobert  Anderson,  Dr.  Fritz  Hommel,  Pro- 
fessors D.  S.  Margoliouth,  A.  H.  Sayce,  How- 
ard Osgood,  J.  E.  Sampey,  R.  W.  Eogers, 
James  Eobertson,  W.  W.  Moore,  E.  D.  Wil- 
son, H.  Hilprecht,  A.  T.  Clay,  A.  von 
Hoonacker,  Willis  J.  Beecher,  W.  M.  Mc- 
Pheeters,  J.  D.  Davis,  A.  C.  Zenos,  G.  Vos, 
229 


Truer  Scholarship  and 

a.  F..  Wright,  Eduard  Konig,  L.  T.  Town- 
send,  G.  C.  M.  Douglas,  F.  Bettex,  and  F.  L. 
Patton. 

These  Biblical  questions,  however,  will 
not  be  finally  determined  by  the  opinions  or 
vote  of  the  scholars,  but  by  the  plebiscite  of 
the  Christian  public. 

The  scholars  are  usually  partisans  bat- 
tling for  their  own  views  or  that  of  their 
schools,  and  are  not  qualified  to  act  as  jurors 
or  judges,  but  are  helpful  in  reaching  right 
conclusions,  as  far  as  they  furnish  correct 
information  or  right  criteria  as  experts  are 
in  our  law  courts,  but  no  farther.  Christian 
people,  in  general,  are  simply  seekers  after 
truth,  and  are  supposed  to  be  without  bias. 
Why  should  they  not  be  better  judges  than 
the  specialists?  There  is  really  no  reason 
why  such  as  have  spiritual  and  sound  dis- 
criminating sense,  and  who  are  sufficiently 
intelligent  to  use  the  critical  and  exegetical 
results  of  the  work  of  the  professional  schol- 
ars should  not  be  competent  to  decide  these 
230 


Better  Critics 

matters,  especially  if  they  keep  their  mental 
atmosphere  free  from  theoretical  mist  and 
their  vision  free  from  the  ^  ^  glamour  of  great 
names."  Joseph  Parker  was  free  to  express 
his  distrust  of  the  '  ^  pedants ' '  regarding  Bib- 
lical criticism.  His  hope  lay  in  the  common 
people.  Was  he  not  right?  The  faith  was 
delivered  originally  to  the  saints,  and  not  to 
the  scholars.  The  saints  have  saved  the 
Church  more  than  once,  or  twice,  or  thrice 
from  the  delusions  which  have  taken  posses- 
sion of  its  intellectually  proud  and  skeptic- 
ally inclined  scholars.  When  the  university 
men  sneered  at  Paul  and  Wyclif  and  Wesley 
and  the  Master  Himself,  the  people  heard 
them  gladly. 

They  are  to  be  trusted  to-day.  They  want 
neither  a  priestly  hierarchy  nor  a  scholarly 
oligarchy  to  take  charge  of  Biblical  interpre- 
tation ;  nor  will  they  be  content  to  wait  until 
German  experts  shall  have  decided  as  to  the 
origin  of  the  Pentateuch  before  they  repeat 
the  Ten  Commandments ;  or  wait  to  hear  the 
231 


Truer  Scholarship  and 

latest  views  of  the  German  Kaiser  before 
they  accept  the  Bible  as  a  Divine  Revelation. 

The  higher  critics  themselves  can  not  rea- 
sonably object  to  these  as  judges.  They  are 
very  lofty  usually  in  their  pretensions,  but 
they  know  how  to  humble  their  intellectual 
pride  when  it  suits  their  purpose. 

I  have  before  me  a  book  entitled  *'The 
Bible  and  the  Child,"  containing  the  views 
of  eight  prominent  higher  critics,  represent- 
ing various  evangelical  denominations  in 
England  and  America.  The  writers  are: 
Farrar,  Horton,  Peake,  Adeney,  Fremantle, 
Gladden,  Porter,  and  Abbott.  They  all  at- 
tempt to  show  ^Hhe  right  way  of  presenting 
the  Bible  to  the  young  in  the  light  of  the 
higher  criticism."  ^^The  first  thing  to  be 
done, ' '  they  tell  us,  ^  4s  to  destroy  their  [boys ' 
and  girls ']  illusions. '  ^  They  caution  us  thus : 
^^No  word  should  be  said  about  the  Bible 
being  infallible;"  and  urge  us  to  ^^ vaccinate 
them  with  doubt  to  save  them  from  the  small- 
pox of  skepticism." 

232 


Better  Critics 

To  prove  that  even  callow  youths  may 
become  higher  critics  they  say :  * '  The  difficul- 
ties of  the  historical  process  are  exaggerated. 
The  main  conclusions  of  the  critical  school 
rest  not  on  matters  of  philological  or  archae- 
ological detail,  but  upon  considerations  which 
appeal  to  the  common  sense  of  men. ' '  What 
a  step  downward  from  the  highest  pinnacle 
of  scholarship  to  ^^ common  sense"— even  the 
common  sense  of  boys  and  girls!  But  the 
book  emphasizes  this  in  another  place,  say- 
ing :  ^  ^  Of  the  works  of  Lachmann  or  Tischen- 
dorf  or  of  Westcott  and  Hort  on  the  New 
Testament,  only  a  few  scholars  can  judge; 
but  of  the  questions  raised  by  Ewald  or 
Kuenen  we  can  all  judge." 

That  is  what  we  claim  ^^we  can  all 
judge;"  but  listen  to  this  book  further:  ^^As 
a  rule,  critical  questions  should  be  let  alone 
in  the  pulpit."  Why?  ''They,"  says  this 
critical  oracle,  ''may  unsettle  the  faith  of 
older  Christians  who  are  unable  to  distin- 
guish between  form  and  substance."  What 
233 


Truer  Scholarship  and 

a  brilliant  jewel  consistency  would  be  even 
in  a  scholar's  diadem!  Can  children  dis- 
tinguish between  shadow  and  substance  bet- 
ter than  their  parents?  If  higher  criticism 
is  the  truth,  why  should  it  lie  at  the  bottom 
of  the  preacher's  theological  well,  or  be  hid- 
den within  the  walls  of  a  theological  or  Sun- 
day-school room?  Why  should  it  not  stand 
as  open-faced  in  the  pulpit? 

The  truth  is  never  dangerous.  It  never 
unsettles  the  faith  of  the  young  or  old, 
though  it  might  ^^ unsettle''  heretical  pro- 
fessors and  preachers.  Truth  never  ^Vac- 
cinates with  doubt/'  but  with  faith  to  save 
from  the  smallpox  of  skepticism.  *  ^  All  truth 
is  safe,"  Max  Miiller  said,  ^^and  nothing  else 
is  safe;  and  he  who  keeps  back  the  truth  or 
withholds  it  from  men,  from  motives  of  ex- 
pediency, is  either  a  coward  or  a  criminal,  or 
both. ' '  And  I  am  free  to  say  that  any  inter- 
pretation of  Scripture  which  can  not  be 
preached  must  be  false. 

It  is  held  by  many  that  the  plan  of  the 
234 


Better  Critics 

higher  critical  propaganda  is  to  change  the 
Scriptural  views  of  the  children  without 
alarming  the  fears  of  older  persons ;  and  thus 
raise  up  a  new  crop  of  higher  critics,  or  at 
least  of  Scriptural  prigs. 

This  is  not,  however,  a  matter  for  the 
consideration  of  boys  and  girls,  but  of  those 
of  mature  years,  if  at  all ;  and  all  before  they 
accept  its  conclusion  ought  to  give  it  close 
and  earnest  attention.  There  will  always  be 
those  who  will  be  weak  enough  to  accept  new 
views  on  the  authority  of  others.  As  intelli- 
gent a  man  as  Dr.  Lyman  Abbott  acknowl- 
edges himself  to  be  a  ^^ radical  evolutionist," 
not  because  he  has  made  an  investigation  of 
the  subject,  but  because  he  thinks  ^'scientists 
are  evolutionists, ' '  and  he  ' '  assumes  the  cor- 
rectness of  their  conclusions."*  I  am  afraid 
many  are  changing  their  Scriptural  views  in 
the  same  way.  Let  us  not  do  so,  but  judge 
for  ourselves. 


'The  Theology  of  an  Evolutionist,  p.  7, 

235 


Truer  Scholarship  and 

The  Contention  Stated,  and  Some  Lines  of 
Defense  Noticed. 

It  will  be  in  place  now  to  show  very  briefly 
the  contention  of  these  scholars,  and  notice  a 
few  of  the  lines  which  they  set  up  in  defense 
of  the  integrity  of  the  Word  of  God.  In 
doing  this,  I  will  make  use  of  a  very  interest- 
ing discovery  made  by  a  Canadian  geologist 
in  a  coal-bed,  and  which  is  referred  to  by  an 
eminent  writer  for  another  purpose. 

Before  the  geologist  made  the  discovery 
scientists  had  observed  a  beautiful  stem-like 
fossil,  quite  abundant  in  coal  in  general, 
which  they  called  Sigillaria ;  and  also  another 
fossil  in  the  clay  which  usually  lies  under  the 
veins  of  coal,  to  which  they  gave  the  name 
Stigmaria.  They  supposed  that  the  Sigil- 
laria and  Stigmaria  fossils  had  no  organic 
connection,  and  that  the  latter  were  gigantic 
seaweeds.  But  this  scientist,  seeing  a  per- 
pendicular trunk  of  Sigillaria,  followed  it 
down,  and  found  that  as  it  reached  the  clay 
'236 


Better  Critics 

it  ended  in  Stigmaria.  ^ '  This  branching  fos- 
sil in  the  clay  was  no  longer  a  seaweed.  It 
was  the  stem,  and  the  clay  was  the  soil,  in 
which  the  great  coal-plant  grew." 

Like  the  scientists  who  investigated  the 
Sigillaria  and  Stigmaria  in  their  coal-hins 
until  the  Canadian  discoverer  took  them  out 
into  the  coal-fields,  the  literary  and  historical 
higher  critics  have  confined  their  Biblical 
studies  mainly  to  hair-splitting  philological 
inquiries  and  historical  speculations  respect- 
ing the  sacred  literature  only,  paying  little 
or  no  attention  to  external  evidence,  except 
to  bolster  up  their  subjective  criteria  and 
their  pet  theories.  As  a  result  of  their  inade- 
quate and  unscientific  investigations,  they 
claim  to  find  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  not  only 
that  which  is  historically  and  otherwise  reli- 
able and  valuable,  which  for  the  sake  of  illus- 
tration I  will  call  Scriptural  Sigillaria;  but 
in  many  portions  of  the  Bible  other  inferior 
forms  of  literature,  such  as  myths,  legends, 
tradition,  folklore,  and  imaginative  or  poetic 
237 


Truer  Scholarship  and 

history,  which  I  will  call  Scriptural  Stig- 
maria.  As  scientists  for  a  long  time  saw  no 
relation  between  the  two  parts  of  the  coal- 
plant,  these  critics  see  no  likeness  or  struc- 
tural or  organic  relation  between  the  book  as 
a  whole  and  the  parts  of  each  of  its  books. 
To  them  Scriptural  Stigmaria  is  nothing  but 
sacred  seaweed.  Looking  upon  large  por- 
tions of  the  Bible  in  this  way,  they  seem  to 
feel  at  liberty  to  adjust  its  form  and  meaning 
to  their  steady  progression  theory  or  any 
other  hypothesis. 

The  scholars  who  accept  what  is  termed 
in  derision  '  ^  traditionalism,  ^ '  on  the  contrary 
hold  that  what  the  higher  critics  say  is  myth, 
legend,  tradition,  folklore,  or  imaginative  or 
poetic  history,  is  really  the  roots  of  what  fol- 
lows, and  is  like  the  rest,  history  in  fact ;  and 
that  the  whole  Bible  is  a  structural,  living, 
organic  unit. 

It  is  easy  for  any  one  who  is  not  blinded 
by  a  theory  to  see  that  their  contention  is 
right  as  to  the  New  Testament  text,  for  the 
238 


Better  Critics 

actual  text  itself  has  been  ^^substantially  re- 
stored. ' '  Respecting  it,  that  eminent  scholar, 
Dr.  Hort,  says:  ^^In  the  variety  and  fullness 
of  evidence  on  which  it  rests,  the  text  of  the 
New  Testament  stands  absolutely  alone 
among  ancient  prose  writings."  The  ^4ower 
critics,"  or  textual  scholars,  to  whom  the 
Christian  world  owes  a  great  debt  of  grati- 
tude, in  producing  this  text  collated  more 
than  two  thousand  manuscripts.  Among 
these  are  the  valuable  Vatican  and  Sinaitic 
manuscripts,  which  go  back  in  date  to  the 
fourth  century,  a  time  previous  to  which  some 
critics  claimed  the  written  New  Testament 
did  not  exist.  By  studying  these  and  various 
translations,  including  the  recently  discov- 
ered Sinaitic  first  or  second-century  palimp- 
sest, and  Tatian's  Diatessaron,  together 
with  quotations  and  references  found  in  the 
works  of  early  Christians  such  as  Justin 
Martyr,  Irenaeus,  Clement  of  Alexandria,  and 
Tertullian,  whose  united  lives  alone  cover  the 
second  century,  they  have  found  and  traced 
239 


Truer  Scholarship  and 

down  the  textual  trunk  into  the  first  century 
and  identified  its  roots  as  they  lie  imbedded 
in  the  sacred  soil  of  the  apostolic  age,  out  of 
which  the  Scriptural  plant  grew.  Why  is  not 
this  textual  identification  just  as  conclusive 
as  that  which  science  accepts  as  final  respect- 
ing the  older  coal-bed  formations? 

The  external  evidence  of  the  trustworthi- 
ness of  the  documents,  as  well  as  that  of  their 
genuineness,  is  growing  each  day.  Professor 
W.  M.  Eamsay,  Mr.  J.  T.  Wood,  M.  Wadding- 
ton,  Bishop  Lightfoot,  and  Professor  Momm- 
sen  have  been  particularly  successful  either 
in  the  discovery  of  important  decisive  evi- 
dence through  the  monuments  of  Eastern 
Asia,  or  in  extracting  it  from  Roman  history, 
or  Latin  literature. 

The  evidence  Avhich  is  to  be  had  at  this 
time  respecting  the  Old  Testament,  though 
very  valuable  and  satisfactory,  is  not  all  of 
the  same  nature,  as  there  are  no  known  an- 
cient manuscripts,  or  clay  tablets,  or  en- 
graved stones,  or  translations  of  these  Scrip- 
240 


Better  Critics 

tures  that  date  back  to,  or  near  to,  tlie  times 
when  the  documents  originated,  nor  any  con- 
temporaneous Israelitish  literature. 

The  book  itself  purports  to  be  a  history 
of  God's  people  from  Abraham's  time  until 
after  the  Captivity,  with  an  important  intro- 
ductory narrative. 

Eegarding  that  part  of  the  sacred  history 
which  intervenes  between  the  crossing  of  the 
eJordan  and  the  end  of  Solomon's  reign  not 
very  much  external  evidence  has  as  yet  been 
obtained,  as  neither  Palestine  nor  Phoenicia 
has  been  extensively  explored;  but  all  that 
exists  helps  to  corroborate  the  Scriptural 
historical  statements. 

A  flood  of  light  has,  however,  been  thrown, 
especially  within  the  last  sixty  years,  upon 
the  other  and  more  important  portions  by 
the  discovery  of  the  Moabite  stone,  the 
Siloam  tablet,  and  the  revelations  made 
through  the  many  excavations  in  Egypt,  As- 
syria, and  Babylonia,  and  the  decipherment 
of  the  Cuneiform  inscriptions. 
16  241 


Truer  Scholarship  and 

The  scholars  which  I  have  mentioned,  and 
hosts  of  others,  have  used  the  knowledge 
gained  from  these  and  other  sources  to  prove 
their  contention  true  regarding  all  the  sacred 
hooks.  They  prove  the  Book  of  Isaiah  to  be 
not  an  aggregation  of  fragments,  but  an  un- 
broken whole— a  true  historic,  prophetic,  lit- 
erary UNITY.  Professor  D.  S.  Margolioum,* 
of  Oxford,  for  instance,  presents  a  wonder- 
ful array  of  facts  in  scientific  form  in  sup- 
port of  this,  showing:  that  the  external  evi- 
dence so  far  as  it  can  be  traced  is  unani- 
mously in  its  favor;  that  the  theory  that 
bisects  the  book  leads  to  absurd  results ;  that 
the  crimes  and  idolatrous  practices  rebuked 
and  the  geography  described  belong  to  the 
age  of  the  first  Isaiah;  that  personal  details 
given  in  the  latter  part  of  the  book  identify 
the  author  with  the  writer  of  the  first  part; 
that  if  there  is  a  second  Isaiah  he  advertises 
himself  as  a  false  prophet ;  that  he  uses  words 
such  as  Nashath,  Shachar,  and  Noses,  only 

*Lines  of  Defense  of  the  Biblical  Revelation,  p.  72, 

242 


Better  Critics 

known  to  the  first  Isaiah,  the  meaning  of 
which  was  lost  by  Jeremiah's  time,  and  that 
there  runs  throughout  the  book  a  scientific 
and  technical  vocabulary,  which  is  found  no- 
where else,  and  which  shows  the  book  to  be 
not  only  a  unity,  but  a  unique  unity. 

Many  maintain  the  genuineness  and  trust- 
worthiness of  the  Book  of  Daniel  through 
evidence  drawn  from  philological  and  archae- 
ological sources.  Sir  Robert  Anderson,  how- 
ever, tells  us  that  he  is  prepared  to  stake  the 
whole  case  on  two  issues;  namely,  ^Hhe  in- 
clusion of  the  book  in  the  Canon,  and  the  ful- 
fillment of  its  great  central  vision  in  Messi- 
anic times." 

Lord  A.  C.  Hervey,  Bishop  of  Bath  and 
Wells,  proves  the  Books  of  the  Chronicles  to 
be  thoroughly  historical.  He  does  this  by 
showing  the  genealogical  lists  to  be  correct; 
their  most  important  statements  to  be  con- 
firmed by  external  evidence ;  their  sources  of 
information  to  be  reliable ;  and  by  a  compari- 
son with  the  Books  of  Samuel  and  Kings, 
243 


Truer  Scholarship  and 

tlieir  contents  to  be  both  independent  and 
trustworthy  history.  He  makes  plain  also 
that  these  books  are  discredited  because  they 
bear  direct  witness  to  the  existence  of  the 
Pentateuch  in  the  days  of  the  judges  and  the 
kings  of  Israel  and  Judah,  just  as  the  charac- 
ter of  a  witness  whose  testimony  is  valuable 
is  sure  to  be  attacked  in  a  lawsuit  by  the  op- 
posing counsel. 

Upon  no  portion  of  the  Bible  has  more 
light  been  thrown  from  external  sources,  than 
upon  that  which  is  covered  by  the  early 
books.  This  seems  providential,  for  the  re- 
mainder of  the  Book  is  built  on,  or  rather 
grows  out  of,  the  Pentateuch,  as  Sigillaria 
grows  out  of  Stigmaria.  The  roots  of  Chris- 
tianity itself  lie  in  these  early  portions,  and 
it  is  against  their  historical  character  that 
the  learning  of  the  critics  has  especially  been 
arrayed.  The  contentions,  on  critical  lines, 
of  Green,  Bissell,  Douglas,  John  Smith,  the 
writers  of  Lex  Mosaica,  and  others,  in  de- 
fense of  their  Mosaic  authorship  have  never 
244 


Better  Critics 

been  refuted.  As  the  critics,  however,  seem 
to  shut  their  eyes  and  ears  to  all  arguments 
of  this  nature,  numerous  scholars  such  as 
Eawlinson,  Smith,  Sayce,  Hommel,  Pinches, 
and  Hilprecht,  have  been  searching  for 
archaeological  and  philological  facts  confirm- 
atory of  this  history.  As  scientists  seeking 
Stigmaria  look  first  for  the  clay-bed  in  which 
the  coal-plant  alone  grew,  these  scientific 
scholars  have  looked  for  conditions  which 
would  make  the  history  both  possible  and 
probable.  In  doing  this,  they  have  examined 
the  Tel-el-Amarna,  the  Assur-bani-pal,  the 
Mugheir  (Ur  of  the  Chaldees),  and  Nippur 
tablets;  the  rock  and  wall  inscriptions;  the 
funeral  tablets  and  mummies  at  Deir-el-Ba- 
hare ;  and  the  many  other  sources  of  evidence 
which  touch  on  that  part  of  Israel's  history, 
and  have  found  that  it  did  not  begin  in  ob- 
scurity nor  under  conditions  favorable  to  the 
growth  of  myths  or  legends,  as  higher  crit- 
icism teaches ;  but  such  as  furnish  a  reason- 
able background  or  basis  for  authentic  his- 
245 


Truer  Scholarship  and 

tory.  They  make  several  things  certain :  that 
Hebrew  was  the  language  of  the  Canaanites ; 
that  it,  or  a  language  ^^  closely  allied  to  that 
of  the  Old  Testament, ' '  was  used  by  the 
Semitic  populations  of  Babylonia  and  South- 
ern Arabia  in  patriarchal  times;  that  the 
art  of  writing  was  known  and  practiced 
centuries  before  the  call  of  Abraham; 
that  an  abundance  of  material  for  re- 
liable history  existed  in  Moses*  time; 
and  that  the  editor  of  the  Pentateuch  was  a 
thorough  Egyptian  scholar,  and  was  better 
qualified  to  describe  natural  phenomena  than 
his  modern  critics.  They  show  that  the 
names  of  Mosaic  type,  such  as  Abram,  Jacob, 
and  Joseph,  were  not  simply  invented  titles 
of  eponymous  heroes  or  mythical  characters, 
but  were  the  names  of  individuals  in  Baby- 
lonia and  Arabia  in  Abraham's  day  and  later, 
and  that  the  Biblical  references  to  the  Hit- 
tites  and  Amorites  are  fully  justified.  They 
confirm  many  very  important  portions  of  the 
books,  such  as  ^^a  whole  host  of  records''  con- 
246 


Better  Critics 

tained  in  the  Priestly  Code,  as  ancient  and 
genuine,  including  the  lists  of  names  in  the 
Book  of  Numbers ;  a  description  of  the  geog- 
raphy of  the  Oriental  world  in  the  tenth  chap- 
ter of  Genesis,  which  would  not  have  been 
correct  later  than  the  time  of  the  nineteenth 
Egyptian  dynasty ;  and  the  entire  fourteenth 
chapter  of  Genesis,  containing  an  account  of 
Chedor-laomer's  campaign  against  the  Ca- 
naanites,— all  of  which  higher  criticism 
claims  to  be  a  ^^post-exilic  forgery." 

Dr.  Brugsch  Bey  holds  that  the  story  of 
Joseph  is  clearly  proven  to  be  historical  by 
the  monuments.  He  identifies  names  and 
places,  and  finds  mention  made  of  the  seven 
years  of  want,  and  the  name  of  the  wise  econ- 
omist who  provided  against  it.  Eecent  dis- 
coveries on  the  sites  of  the  Amorite  cities  of 
Lachish  and  Gezer,  together  with  the  tablets 
found  at  Tel-el- Amarna,  wonderfully  confirm 
the  history  of  the  Pentateuch  and  later  books. 
They  have  identified  Apepi  as  the  Pharaoh  of 
Joseph's  time,  Eameses  II  as  that  of  the  op- 
247 


Truer  Scholarship  and 

pression,  and  even  his  mummy ;  and  Meneph- 
tah  as  that  of  the  Exodus;  and  have  lo- 
cated the  land  of  Goshen  and  the  site  of 
Pithom  with  its  bricks,  with  and  without 
straw. 

Perhaps  no  history  has  been  more  fully 
verified  than  the  Mosaic  narrative  of  the  Ex- 
odus; for  a  scientific  survey,  with  theodolite 
and  land  chain,  altitude  and  azimuth,  com- 
passes and  photographic  camera,  has  been 
made  of  the  entire  route  by  distinguished 
engineers  and  scientists.  They  all  agree  in 
their  report  that  from  all  they  could  ascer- 
tain by  a  close  examination  of  the  geography, 
topography,  geology,  climate,  and  natural 
history  of  the  desert,  the  Bible  account  of  the 
long  march,  in  place  of  being  a  post-exilic 
invention,  is  a  narrative  of  real  photographic 
truthfulness. 

The  Biblical  account  of  the  destruction  of 
Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  and  the  crossing  of 
the  Jordan  has,  to  a  large  extent,  been  estab- 
lished by  a  close  study  of  the  Jordan  Valley 
248 


Better  Critics 

by  Sir  J.  W.  Dawson  and  others,  as  truthful 
descriptions  by  eye-witnesses. 

Geology,  according  to  scientists  like 
Wright  and  Winchell,  not  only  makes  the 
story  of  the  Flood  possible  and  probable,  but, 
in  connection  with  the  universal  testimony 
which  archaeology  bears  in  its  favor,  fully 
confirms  it.  An  Akkadian  record  of  that 
event  which  originated  at  least  five  hundred 
years  before  Moses,  recently  discovered,  har- 
monizes in  a  remarkable  manner  with  that 
of  Genesis,  and  is  as  much  a  double  narrative 
as  the  other.  It  is  evident  that  the  writer 
confined  himself  to  a  statement  of  facts ;  for 
he,  unlike  all  the  other  historians  of  that 
event,  represents  the  dimensions  of  the  ark 
as  being  as  scientific  in  its  proportions  as  an 
ocean  greyhound. 

The  scheme  of  creation  presented  in  Gen- 
esis so  fully  accords  with  the  ascertained 
facts  of  modern  science,  that  distinguished 
geologists,  such  as  Dawson,  Winchell,  Guyot, 
Dana,  and  Wright,  not  only  refuse  to  regard 
249 


Truer  Scholarship  and 

it  as  the  product  of  a  lively  imagination,  as 
the  critics  assert,  but  look  upon  it  as  a  stand- 
ing miracle  in  literature. 

It  is  evident  that  while  Biblical  history 
does  not  anticipate  directly  scientific  discov- 
ery, its  language  is  so  Divinely  elastic  and 
wise  that  established  scientific  facts  only 
serve  to  confirm  its  correctness. 

I  wish  now  to  say,  as  my  plan  will  not 
admit  of  anything  further  of  this  nature,  as 
specimens,  that  I  have  carefully  considered 
much  of  the  evidence  which  these  scholars 
and  scientists  have  offered,  and  that  I  am 
fully  convinced  that  they  have  shown  conclu- 
sively, as  much  so  as  the  Canadian  geologist 
did  the  identity  of  Sigillaria  and  Stigmaria, 
that  the  Bible  is  one  Book;  that  no  part  is 
historical  seaweed,  but  that  as  a  record  it  is 
all  true  in  history  and  in  fact.  It  is  quite  evi- 
dent, to  my  mind,  that  this  wonderful  super- 
natural story  can  be  clearly  and  easily  traced 
down  from  Kevelation  to  Genesis;  that  the 
unity  of  each  part  is  seen  by  its  literary  and 
250 


Better  Critics 

historical  elements;  that  the  identity  of  the 
Book,  as  a  whole,  is  shown  by  the  religious 
purpose  that  runs  through  it,  and  the  Divine 
stamp  of  inspiration  which  is  everywhere 
upon  it ;  and  that  it  is  all  confirmed  by  strong 
evidence  found  on  manuscript,  papyrus  rolls, 
tablets,  cylinders,  and  even  the  records  of 
the  rocks. 

It  is  not  necessary  that  all  the  events  of 
the  Bible  should  be  proved  by  external  testi- 
mony for  it  to  be  considered  confirmed  as  an 
historical  book,  as  any  history  is  supposed 
to  be  such,  if  enough  is  known  to  show  that 
the  author  was  well  informed  and  wrote 
clearly  and  honestly.  In  the  case  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch, the  results  of  the  linguistic  labors 
of  the  critics  became  so  much  literary  rub- 
bish the  moment  many  important  portions 
were  shown  to  be  historic,  for  the  contention 
of  higher  criticism  is  that  none  of  the  books 
of  Moses  originated  earlier  than  six  hundred 
years  after  Moses.  No  further  evidence 
seems  needed  to  confirm  these  books,  and 
251 


Truer  Scholarship  and 

even  should  the  ark  of  the  covenant  he  dis- 
covered, which  is  said  in  the  fifth  verse  of  the 
second  chapter  of  second  Maccabees  to  have 
been  hidden  by  Jeremiah  in  a  cave  in  Mt. 
Nebo,  and  the  Books  of  the  Law  be  found, 
they  would  simply  be  additional  evidence  of 
what  we  are  already  certain. 
I  will  now  offer  a  few 

Considerations  and  Suggestions, 

which  I  hope  may  help  the  truth-seeking  stu- 
dent in  arriving  at  wise  and  correct  conclu- 
sions regarding  these  matters. 

1.  Sound  criticism  acquiesces  in  this,  that 
the  burden  of  proof  rests  on  those  who  deny 
the  genuineness  or  authenticity  of  a  book, 
and  not  on  those  who  accept  it  on  its  own 
declaration.  This  is  a  very  important  point, 
and  should  have  more  weight  than  is  usually 
given  it,  for  it  raises  a  strong  presumption  in 
favor  of  the  integrity  of  the  Bible,  which  can 
only  be  overcome  by  forcible  evidence;  and 
such  evidence  should  be  adduced  before  any 
252 


Better  Critics 

formal  defense  should  be  expected.  Evidence 
of  that  character  has  not  yet  been  presented. 

2.  To  maintain  the  integrity  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  it  is  necessary  to  hold  firmly  to 
the  claim  that  the  sacred  writers  were  super- 
naturally  inspired. 

If  they  were  not  thus  inspired,  the  Bible 
not  only  makes  false  claims,  but  portions  of 
it  are  of  little  value,  in  the  estimation  of 
many  thoughtful  students,  and  necessarily 
unreliable,  unless  guaranteed  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  as  for  instance  the  account  of  Christ's 
temptation  and  His  agony  in  the  garden. 

If  they  were  Divinely  inspired,  and  we 
have  no  reason  to  doubt  this,  as  it  has  been 
made  manifest,  by  miracles  and  prophecy,  by 
the  character  of  the  writers,  as  well  as  by  that 
of  their  writings,  then  what  they  wrote  must 
be  trustworthy. 

If  it  should  be  shown  that  the  writers 
made  serious  mistakes,  that  would  certainly 
prove  that  they  were  not  inspired. 

But  should  mistakes  appear  in  Sacred 
253 


Truer  Scholarship  and 

Writ,  as  it  is  claimed  exist,  such  as  discrep- 
ancies and  contradictions,  that  would  not 
prove  that  the  original  writers  were  unin- 
spired ;  because  such  might  occur  through  the 
defective  work  of  the  numerous  copyists  or 
translators,  who  were  not  inspired. 

Should  the  monuments  contradict  their 
statements,  that  would  not  show  them  to  be 
uninspired,  as  the  inspired  penmen,  no  doubt, 
used  their  correct  information  and  historic 
sense  in  discriminating  between  what  was 
true  and  false;  and  were  thus  able,  being 
aided  by  God,  to  write  down  the  real  facts  in 
each  case.  There  is  no  reason  why  Moses 
should  not  have  been  able,  furnished  in  this 
way,  to  select  from  Babylonian  or  other 
sources  what  was  actual ;  and  Paul  and  Peter 
and  Jude  from  the  Apocryphal  or  other  writ- 
ings or  tradition. 

In   any   case,   modern   scholars   are  not 

qualified  to  correct  mistakes,  if  there  should 

be  such,  or  even  to  modify  the  Canon  of 

Scripture,  as  the  greater  part  of  the  histor- 

254 


Better  Critics 

ical  data  that  were  in  existence  then  are  lost 
to  ns ;  and  the  people  who  accepted  their  writ- 
ings as  inspired  knew  the  writers  and  their 
credentials,  and  had  a  knowledge  of  the 
facts  in  each  case  snch  as  is  not  possible  for 
this  age  to  have,  to  say  nothing  of  the  in- 
spiration which  the  people  of  God  then 
may  have  shared,  in  some  degree,  with  the 
writers. 

If  it  should  appear  that  Moses  incorpo- 
rated modifications  of  Hammurabi's  laws  or 
that  of  the  Egyptians  into  his  own  code,  or 
that  he  worked  over  old  documents  in  writing 
his  history,  and  that  Ezra  revised  Moses' 
laws;  or  that  he  added  to  the  latter 's  writ- 
ings his  address,  or  an  account  of  his  death 
and  burial,  that  would  not  interfere  with  the 
inspiration  or  authority  of  the  laws  or  the 
writings  as  long  as  it  is  conceded  that  they 
were  under  God's  guidance  in  doing  so,  and 
were  doing  honest  work. 

3.  Notwithstanding  all  the  pressing  need 
that  the  critics  claim  to  see  for  the  adjusting 
255 


Truer  Scholarship  and 

of  the  Bible  to  science,  no  adjustment  seems 
to  be  required. 

One  of  the  marvels  of  the  times  is  the  har- 
mony that  is  seen  to  prevail  between  an  intel- 
ligent and  common-sense  interpretation  of 
Scripture  and  the  ascertained  facts— facts, 
not  theories  or  opinions— which  science  pre- 
sents. 

If  we  keep  in  mind  that  the  Bible  views 
physical  things  as  men  see  them ;  that  it  uses 
popular  and  not  scientific  terms ;  that  day  in 
Genesis  may  mean  age  or  period;  that  the 
length  of  the  day  is  not  given;  and  then  con- 
sult the  facts  which  geology  gives  us,  we  will 
find  that  the  testimony  of  the  rocks,  as  we 
have  already  noticed,  confirms  the  revelation 
of  the  history  of  creation  in  a  wonderful  way. 
The  same  is  true  of  astronomy,  biology,  and 
all  the  sciences  so  far  as  they  have  arrived  at 
certain  and  well  assured  results.  Moses' 
story  of  the  Flood  and  many  other  references 
to  physical  things,  as  we  have  already  seen, 
agree  also  with  the  established  facts  of  sci- 
256 


Better  Critics 

ence.  ''I  agree  in  all  essential  points  with 
Mr.  Gladstone/'  writes  Professor  Dana, 
*  *  and  believe  that  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis 
and  science  are  in  accord."  ^^All  human 
discoveries,"  wrote  Sir  John  Herschel, 
^^seem  to  be  made  only  for  the  purpose  of 
confirming  more  and  more  strongly  the  truths 
contained  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures."  No 
wonder  Dr.  Faunce  exclaims:  ^^The  settled 
facts  (of  science)  are  so  many  illustrations 
of  Scripture  truth. "  Is  it  not  amazing,  how- 
ever, that  these  critics  who  boast  of  their  vast 
learning  should  be  so  ignorant  of  the  latest 
results  of  science  as  not  to  know  these  im- 
portant familiar  facts? 

4.  Assuming  that  the  Bible  is  defective  as 
to  logic,  grammar,  etc.,  as  the  higher  critics 
say,  which  we  otherwise  do  not  admit,  it  can 
be  easily  shown  that  they  are  not  competent 
censors. 

Each  age  has  its  own  idea  of  logic,  and 
what  may  seem  a  logical  deduction  to  an  Oc- 
cidental may  seem  very  different  to  an  Ori- 
17  257 


Truer  Scholarship  and 

ental  mind.  Experience  teaches  ns  also  that 
while  logic  may  appear  to  be  certain  in  its 
principles,  these  principles  are  seldom,  if 
ever,  infallibly  applied.  This  is  especially 
true  of  the  critics  themselves,  who  have  evi- 
dently abnormally  developed  the  imaginative 
and  speculative  powers  at  the  expense  of  the 
logical.  Anyway,  should  not  one  be  sure  of 
the  infallibility  of  his  own  logic  before  he  at- 
tempts to  correct  the  logic  of  inspired  writers, 
and  that  of  the  Master  Himself  ? 

Is  it  not  true  as  well,  that  the  most  per- 
fect Hebrew  scholars  of  our  day  can  have  at 
the  best  but  a  very  limited  knowledge  of  a 
language  of  such  remote  antiquity,  a  knowl- 
edge possibly  inferior  to  that  of  a  shepherd 
or  milkmaid  of  Solomon's  day? 

5.  Though  a  student  of  the  Bible  should 
not  look  for  difficulties,  such  as,  for  instance, 
seeming  discrepancies  or  contradictions,  but 
for  the  beautiful  harmonies  and  correspond- 
encies that  exist,  he  should  not  be  surprised 
when  he  finds  them.  If  the  Bible  did  not  con- 
258 


Better  Critics 

tain  snch,  one  would  naturally  doubt  its  Di- 
vine character.  They  belong  to  the  Bible  in 
the  nature  of  things.  They  do  not,  however, 
necessarily  interfere  with  the  orthodox  con- 
ception of  inspiration,  and  are  not  half  so 
numerous  or  so  serious  as  the  critics  would 
have  us  believe,  though  they  have  raked  up 
all  matters  of  that  kind  that  have  been 
pointed  out  and  thumbed  over  by  the  differ- 
ent infidels  of  the  past,  and  have  put  them  be- 
fore us  in  the  worst  possible  form,  and  often 
in  a  false  light.  They  try  to  show  them  to  be 
errors.  So  far,  however,  though  challenged 
frequently  to  do  so,  they  have  not  been  able 
to  establish  a  single  serious  error.  If  they 
should  prove  such  to  exist,  that  would  not  in- 
validate the  Bible,  or  show  that  it  was  not 
inerrant  when  the  Spirit  gave  it  to  mankind. 
Most,  if  not  all,  of  the  difficulties  arise 
through  faulty  manuscripts,  wrong  transla- 
tions, mistaken  interpretation  of  Scripture, 
false  representations  of  what  history,  science, 
philosophy,  etc.,  record  or  teach ;  our  failure 
259 


Truer  Scholarship  and 

carefully  to  compare  the  different  portions  of 
each  book  with  each  other,  and  with  that  of 
the  other  books;  our  unavoidable  ignorance 
of  the  condition  of  things  at  the  time  when 
each  book  was  written,  and  the  changes  that 
must  have  occurred  in  the  use  and  meaning 
of  words,  phrases,  and  terms,  and  in  customs, 
laws,  usages,  and  other  things,  between  the 
different  periods  at  which  the  several  writers 
lived ;  and  because  we  often  ignore  the  fact 
that  these  writers  lived  in  various  lands,  as 
well  as  different  ages,  spoke  different  lan- 
guages and  dialects,  used  different  weight 
and  measure  systems,  and  computed  time  by 
different  methods  —  Jewish,  Eoman,  and 
probably  Greek  and  Assyrian.  Many  hun- 
dreds of  these  have  already  disappeared 
through  scholarly  treatment  and  the  discov- 
ery of  missing  facts.  Let  us  mix  a  little  hu- 
mility, however,  with  our  knowledge,  and  re- 
member that  our  information  is  not  so  exten- 
sive that  all  that  does  not  agree  with  it  must 
be  wrong. 

260 


Better  Critics 

6.  It  is  well  to  keep  in  mind  that  higher 
criticism  produces  very  many  more  diffi- 
culties than  it  removes. 

The  historical,  ethical,  and  doctrinal  con- 
tradictions which  it  creates  are  innumerable. 

In  order  to  get  rid  of  not  more  than 
twenty  supposed  anachronisms,  which  can 
easily  be  accounted  for,  without  its  manipu- 
lations, as  explanations  inserted  by  Ezra  or 
other  inspired  redactors,  it  introduces  archa- 
isms many  times  more  numerous  and  much 
more  serious,  which  seem  to  defy  explanation. 

It  claims  to  relieve  the  Bible  of  much  em- 
barrassment on  account  of  its  historical  in- 
accuracies, by  denying  that  the  historians 
were  supernaturally  informed  or  any  way 
aided  by  God  as  to  facts,  and  yet  in  doing  this 
it  throws  the  whole  book  in  doubt,  even  re- 
vealed truth,  until  each  statement  is  con- 
firmed by  external  evidence,  and  utterly  fails 
to  account  for  history  such  as  Moses  gives 
us  of  the  Creation,  which  he  could  not  have 
had  from  human  sources. 
261 


Truer  Scholarship  and 

The  crux  criticorum,  who  pose  as  evan- 
gelicals, however,  is  to  reconcile  their  confi- 
dence in  the  Bible  as  a  revelation  with  their 
view  of  it  as  a  literary  production. 

7.  The  date  or  name  of  the  author  which 
a  book  or  a  portion  of  a  book,  such  as  a  psalm 
bears  or  the  circumstances  under  which  it 
was  written,  is  of  vital  importance,  notwith- 
standing all  the  assurances  which  the  critics 
give  us  to  the  contrary.  The  desperate  and 
continuous  efforts  which  they  have  been  mak- 
ing for  so  many  decades,  through  their  vari- 
ous divisive  and  composite  and  other  the- 
ories, to  show  that  Moses  was  not  the  author 
of  the  Pentateuch,  contradict  all  their  assur- 
ances. The  fact  is,  that  the  value  of  any 
book,  but  especially  an  historical  or  prophetic 
one,  depends  largely  upon  such  things. 

If  neither  Moses  nor  any  one  under  his 
direction  wrote  the  Pentateuch,  then  as  a 
simple  human  document  much  of  it  loses  all 
the  weight  that  a  man  of  character  such  as  he 
was  carries— when  relating  such  as  passes 
262 


Better  Critics 

•ander  his  own  observation,  as  Caesar's  Com- 
mentaries would  if  not  genuine. 

If  these  five  books  were  not  written,  as 
higher  critics  all  claim,  until  from  six  to  ten 
centuries  after  Moses'  time,  and  then  by  un- 
inspired men,  then  they  become  of  no  more 
historical  value  than  the  chronicles  of  the 
Cid,  or  the  literature  of  King  Arthur.  The 
same,  in  a  degree,  is  true  of  the  Books  of 
Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  John,  and  Acts  and 
other  writings. 

Not  only  so,  but  the  whole  question  of 
prophecy  and  miracle  rests  very  largely  on 
the  date  and  authorship  of  the  books.  If  it 
were  not  for  the  predictive  element  in  Isaiah 
and  the  predictive  and  miraculous  elements 
in  Daniel,  there  would  be  no  need  of  making 
a  piece  of  patchwork  of  the  one,  or  of  redat- 
ing  the  other.  The  date  and  the  author  de- 
termine the  character  of  these  books,  and  of 
many  others  as  well. 

Tom  Paine  saw  this,  and  said:  *^Take 
away  from  Genesis  the  belief  that  Moses  was 
263 


Truer  Scholarship  and 

its  author,  on  which  only  the  strange  belief 
that  it  is  the  Word  of  God  has  stood,  and 
there  remains  nothing  in  Grenesis  but  an 
anonymous  book  of  stories,  fables,  and  tra- 
ditionary or  invented  absurdities  or  of  down- 
right lies."  It  is  very  obvious  that  some  of 
the  higher  critics  themselves  see  this,  for 
though  they  claim  that  the  worth  of  the  Pen- 
tateuch or  Isaiah  is  not  impaired  by  regard- 
ing them  as  compilations  of  a  late  date,  they 
denounce  those  who  hold  that  the  Book  of 
Acts  or  of  Galatians  is  a  composite  work,  and 
of  late  date.  They  attack  Professor  W.  C. 
Van  Manen  furiously  because  of  his  ^'va- 
garies" and  his  '' outrageous  allegation"  in 
representing  ''the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  as 
a  composite  production  of  unknown  author- 
ship. ' '  Yet  no  sane,  unbiased  person  will  be 
able  to  see  why  a  book  of  the  New  Testament 
should  be  any  more  unfavorably  affected  by 
a  change  of  date  or  authorship  than  one  of 
the  Old. 

Eduard  Meyer,  of  Halle,  a  renowned  critic, 
264 


Better  Critics 

acknowledges  that  the  value  of  any  book  de- 
pends largely  on  its  genuineness,  for  he  says : 
'^For  a  document  is,  if  genuine,  a  ivitness 
which  defies  contradiction.'^ 

8.  The  Biblical  authors  must  be  consid- 
ered men  of  real  piety  and  honesty. 

It  is  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  men 
should  be  inspired  by  God,  called  ^4ioly 
men,''  and  their  writings  termed  *^ sacred 
oracles,"  who  were  capable,  no  matter  how 
low  their  ethical  standards  were,  of  framing 
civic  and  priestly  codes  for  ambitious  pur- 
poses, and  inventing  false  prophecies,  mirac- 
ulous and  other  historical  events,  and  then 
to  give  standing  and  authority  to  their  docu- 
ments, date  them  back,  and  assume  for  them 
the  names  of  venerated  and  ancient  person- 
ages, such  as  Moses,  Daniel,  Isaiah,  and 
Jonah,  as  the  writers  newly  named  J,  E,  D,  P, 
and  E,  and  the  supposed  unknown  authors  of 
much  of  Isaiah  and  all  of  Daniel  and  Jonah 
must  have  done,  if  the  higher  critics  are  right 
in  their  conclusions. 

265 


Truer  Scholarship  and 

The  morality  of  such  transactions  re- 
minds us  forcibly  of  the  commercial  honesty 
of  the  liquor  dealer  who  doctors  his  wine; 
fills  his  cellar  with  sealed  bottles  labeled  back 
many  years ;  and  trains  spiders  to  weave  cob- 
webs about  and  over  them,  so  that  his  mer- 
chandise may  have  the  appearance  of  age,  as 
well  as  the  flavor  of  antiquity. 

Briggs  and  others  do  not  relieve  the  seri- 
ousness of  the  matter  by  claiming  that  the 
holiest  of  the  Old  Testament  worthies  did  not 
know  the  evil  of  lying  or  defrauding  until 
they  were  taught  better  by  Persian  ethics 
during  the  Exile  for  the  real  gravity  of  the 
question  lies  not  so  much  in  the  falsehoods 
and  fraudulent  actions  of  the  supposed  au- 
thors, as  in  God's  imagined  relations  to  them. 
How  could  God,  who  never  condones  evil,  em- 
ploy and  inspire  liars  and  deceivers  to  pro- 
duce forged  documents  that  might  contain 
wonderful  revelations  of  Divine  truth? 
Deists  like  Thomas  Jefferson  and  Tom  Paine 
could  not  conceive  of  God  being  a  party  to 
266 


Better  Critics 

any  sucli  evil  doings.  Wellhausen  is  said  to 
have  remarked;  '^I  knew  the  Old  Testament 
was  a  fraud,  but  I  never  dreamt,  as  these 
Scotch  fellows  do,  of  making  God  a  party  to 
the  fraud.'' 

9.  The  following  is  no  doubt  a  just  canon 
of  criticism;  viz.,  whatever  source  of  evi- 
dence or  manner  of  procedure  is  inadmis- 
sible in  defense  of  the  integrity  of  the  Bible, 
is  inadmissible  against  it.  The  critics  over- 
look this.  They  frequently  repudiate  or  pass 
over  as  worthless  what  is  contained  in  the 
Bible  itself,  the  Apocryphal  Books,  the  Tal- 
mud, eJosephus,  and  other  such  writings,  as 
evidence,  and  resent  their  use  as  grossly  un- 
critical when  they  contradict  their  theories; 
but  when  they  seem  to  favor  them  they  bring 
them  forward  as  wonderfully  competent  wit- 
nesses. For  instance,  the  author  of  ^^  Moses 
and  the  Prophets''  quotes  the  Word  of  God 
often,  as  if  its  testimony  were  unimpeach- 
able, and  then  though  it  is  stated  again  and 
again  regarding  the  giving  of  the  ^'Priestly 
267 


Truer  Scholarship  and 

Code''  in  Exodus,  Leviticus,  and  Numbers  in 
the  most  solemn  manner,  ^^The  Lord  spake 
unto  Moses  saying;"  and  although  these  as- 
severations are  corroborated  by  the  most  un- 
mistakable references  in  the  Books  of  Joshua, 
Judges,  Samuel,  Kings,  Chronicles,  Hebrews, 
and  others,  he  ignores  all  this  evidence  as  if 
it  were  so  much  chaff.  ^' There  is  no  evi- 
dence, *'  he  boldly  asserts,  ^'that  the  great 
body  of  these  ritual  laws  were  either  ob- 
served or  known  before  the  Babylonian 
exile/'*  They  quite  generally  seek  to  estab- 
lish their  Kenotic  theory  on  one  or  two  pas- 
sages of  Paul's  writings,  which  they  miscon- 
strue, as  if  his  statements  were  not  to  be 
questioned,  and  then  when  his  teachings  re- 
specting inspiration,  the  resurrection  of  the 
body,  the  doctrine  of  the  atonement,  or  the 
true  character  of  the  Old  Testament  are  pro- 
duced against  them,  they  deny  vigorously 
that  he  had  any  special  authority  as  a  Bib- 
lical exegete  or  a  theologian.     They  do  not 


Terry,  Moses  and  the  Prophets,  p.  34. 

268 


Better  Critics 

seem  to  see  that  by  doing  this  they  dig  the 
supposed  ground  from  under  their  absurd 
Kenotic  theory. 

Christ's  comparison  of  His  own  burial  to 
that  of  Jonah  '4n  the  whale's  belly"  fully 
authenticates  the  incident,  and  is  an  insur- 
mountable obstacle  in  the  way  of  their  inter- 
pretation of  the  prophet's  book.  They  seek 
to  remove  it  by  calling  it  an  interpolation,  as 
they  get  rid  of  other  difficulties.  ^^Use  a 
modern  device,"  says  the  inventive  Dr. 
Peters,  ^^  bracket  the  verse,  and  the  difficulty 
vanishes  at  once."  Certainly,  the  brackets 
are  a  very  handy  device ;  but  why,  if  they  are 
honest  truth-seekers,  and  not  partisans,  try- 
ing to  make  out  a  case,  do  not  they  use  this 
same  modern  device  in  connection  with  all 
the  discrepancies  and  contradictions  they 
claim  to  see  in  the  Bible,  and  thus  do  away 
with  all  the  difficulties  in  the  way  of  its  in- 
fallibility ?  There  are  minor  difficulties  which 
might,  without  violence  to  a  true  interpreta- 
tion, be  accounted  for  by  considering  them 
269 


Truer  Scholarship  and 

mistakes  or  interpolations  made  by  copyists 
or  translators,  but  the  wholesale  claims  made 
by  these  erudite  men  in  this  direction  are  ut- 
terly preposterous,  especially  as  they  seem 
to  resent  the  use  of  brackets  by  others  as  an 
infringement  of  their  own  patent  rights. 

10.  There  is  nothing  about  modern  higher 
critical  scholarship,  as  to  its  loyalty  to  truth, 
its  piety,  its  erudition,  or  genius,  which  would 
naturally  lead  us  to  accept  of  its  views  of 
Scripture  in  opposition  to  those  which  have 
been  represented  by  all  the  rest  of  the  He- 
brew and  Christian  scholarship  of  all  the 
ages.  And  I  think  most  thoughtful  people 
will  agree  with  Lightf oot  when  he  says :  ^ '  The 
historical  sense  of  seventeen  or  eighteen  cen- 
turies is  larger  and  truer  than  the  critical 
insight  of  a  section  of  men  in  our  late  half- 
century. ' ' 

Furthermore,  it  is  not  probable  that  God 
hid  the  real  character  of  the  Holy  Scriptures 
from  the  devout  and  holy  of  all  their  his- 
tory—prophets, priests,  psalmists,  evangel- 
270 


Better  Critics 

ists,  and  apostles,  and  even  His  own  Son,  to 
make  a  revelation  of  the  same,  through  the 
reason  or  otherwise,  to  His  defiant  enemies, 
such  as  Porphyry,  Celsus,  and  Ingersoll,  or 
rationalists  such  as  Vatke,  Graf,  Eichhorn, 
Kuenen,  and  Wellhausen,  or  through  these 
to  a  few  liberal  orthodox  men  of  this  egotis- 
tical age,  such  as  Horton,  Driver,  Briggs, 
Harper,  Gladden,  and  Abbott. 

11.  It  is  folly  to  hold  that  when  Jesus 
Christ  referred  to  the  Old  Testament  so  as 
to  create  the  impression  that  He  considered 
it  historically  and  prophetically  reliable,  and 
a  Divine  revelation,  He  was  only  accommo- 
dating Himself  to  the  false  views  of  His 
people.  If  He  could  not  make  Himself  un- 
derstood regarding  things  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, He  can  not  be  believed  in  regard  to 
what  He  says  in  the  New.  If  He  did  not 
mean  what  He  said  when  He  spoke  of  the 
Scriptures  as  testifying  of  Him,  how  can  we 
believe  Him  when  He  testifies  of  Himself! 

12.  After  all  is  said,  the  supreme  ques- 

271 


Truer  Scholarship  and 

tion  lies  in  the  issue  the  leaders  make  between 
themselves  and  their  critical  method  and 
Christ  as  to  authority;  and  it  is  futile  for 
second-rate,  liberal,  orthodox  critics  to  evade 
the  issue  by  hair-splitting  explanations  or 
vain  subterfuges.  The  leaders  offer  no  com- 
promise. They  acknowledge  that  Christ's 
words,  ^^The  Scripture  can  not  be  broken," 
expressed  His  view  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Keferring  to  the  New  Testament,  Kuenen 
says:  ^'Its  judgment  concerning  the  origin  of 
the  Mosaic  law  and  of  the  prophetical  expec- 
tation, and  concerning  their  relation  to  the 
historical  reality,  may  be  regarded  as  diamet- 
rically opposed  to  ours. ' '  ' '  We  must  either, ' ' 
he  says  elsewhere,  ^^cast  aside  as  worthless 
our  dearly-bought  scientific  method,  or  must 
forever  cease  to  acknowledge  the  authority 
of  the  New  Testament  in  the  domain  of  the 
exegesis  of  the  Old.'' 

Of   course,    if   we    reject   the    authority 
of  the  New  Testament,  we  reject  Christ's 
authority.      And    surely    no    one    who    has 
272 


Better  Critics 

divested  himself  enough  of  intellectual 
pride  to  be  worthy  of  the  name  Christian 
would  do  that,  or  would  presume  to  have  a 
more  thorough  critical  knowledge  of  the  Bible 
than  the  one  he  calls  Lord.  When  he  does 
either  he  should  renounce  the  name  Christian. 
^' Doubt  as  to  the  validity  of  our  Lord's  and 
of  His  apostles'  method  of  expounding  in- 
volves," says  Meyer,  ^^necessarily  a  renunci- 
ation of  Christianity."  It  would  be  strange 
if  any  one  who  has  confidence  in  Him  as  God 
would  part  with  Him  for  the  sake  of  an  un- 
proved ^^ scientific  method."  If  he  should, 
it  would  be  certainly  a  ^^dearly-bought" 
method.  Is  it  worth  the  sacrifice?  He  loses 
Christ;  what  does  .he  gain!  a  scientific 
mirage.  He  loses  Christ;  and  what  a  loss! 
Christ  the  soul  of  the  Bible;  the  ^^ Central 
Sun  that  illuminates  the  whole !" 


18 


God's  Bible  the 
People's  Bible 


"  This  book  of  stars  lights  to  eternal  bliss.*' — George 
Herbert. 


God's  Bible  the 
People's  Bible 

During  the  time  of  the  Reformation  and 
long  after,  men  looked  mainly  at  the  Divine 
side  of  the  Bible;  Almighty  intelligence  dic- 
tated it  all,  and  man's  part  was  largely  that 
of  a  machine.  The  tendency  now  is  toward 
the  other  extreme.  Instead  of  putting  a 
strong  emphasis  on  God's  part,  many  lay  it 
chiefly  on  man's,  and  lower  the  Book  to  the 
level  of  common  literature.  Both  views  are 
very  inadequate;  the  first  ignores  man;  the 
second  ignores  God;  whereas  the  Book  is 

**Most  human  and  yet  most  Divine, 
The  flower  of  man  and  God." 

Not  less  than  forty  different  writers,  dif- 
fering in  intelligence,  spiritual  discernment, 
taste,  style,  and  method,  and  covering  a  pe- 

277 


God's  Bible  the 

riod  of  over  sixteen  centuries  of  history, 
shared  in  its  composition,  and  have  all  left 
the  marks  of  their  personal  elements  upon  its 
pages.  Men  wrote  all  its  words,  and  no  doubt 
were  in  full  use  of  their  human  faculties,  even 
when  filled  and  lifted  up  and  moved  by  the 
Divine  Spirit,  as  ^^they  were  not  God's  pens, 
but  God's  penmen."  As  writers  they  were 
animated  and  illuminated  by  God ;  were  sub- 
ject to  His  suggestions.  His  thoughts,  and 
His  control.  They  worked  voluntarily  and 
harmoniously  with  God;  the  stronger  direct- 
ing and  using  the  weaker.  Thus  God  was  the 
co-author  of  it  all ;  and  you  can  no  more  sepa- 
rate Him  from  man  in  the  Bible,  than  the 
soul  from  the  living  body.  In  this  way  alone 
can  the  marvelous  unity  of  the  different 
books  of  the  Bible  be  accounted  for;  a  unity 
that  is  not  merely  mechanical  or  literary,  but 
real  and  vital. 

The  Holy  Scriptures  are  not  merely  a 
'* Divine  library"  or  *'a  piece  of  patchwork," 
or  ^*a  reconstruction  and  adaptation  of  en- 
278 


People's  Bible 

tirely  heterogeneous  literary  elements,''  as 
Delitzsch  and  others  represent  it,  but  a  con- 
tinuous organic  whole,  every  part  being 
vitally  related  to  the  other,  and  each  book 
being  not  only  pervaded  with  God's  Spirit, 
but  occupied  with  His  message.  It  is  not 
a  record  of  truth  which  various  men  have 
discovered  separately  by  their  own  natural 
powers,  but  is  a  record  mainly  of  a  progress- 
ive revelation  of  truth  and  the  plan  of  sal- 
vation made  by  God  to  His  chosen  people  at 
various  times  and  by  different,  specially- 
equipped  persons.  It  reveals  to  us  the  pro- 
gressive development  of  the  kingdom  of  God, 
first  under  the  dispensation  of  the  Father, 
then  that  of  the  Son,  and  then  under  that  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.  The  progress  is  slow  in  the 
Old  Testament,  the  stream  seemingly  run- 
ning backward  at  times ;  but  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament it  advances  rapidly  from  the  begin- 
ning to  the  end,  from  Gospel  to  Gospel,  and 
from  ''Gospel  to  Acts,  and  Acts  to  Epistles, 
and  Epistles  to  Eevelation."  The  entire 
279 


God's  Bible  the 

New  Testament  period  was  embraced  within 
the  lifetime  of  the  apostle  John. 

The  Bible  is  a  unique  Book,  being  the  only 
inspired  history  in  the  world  of  the  religious 
experience  of  a  great  people,  and  the  only 
record  of  a  Divine  supernatural  revelation 
given  to  any  people.  It  is  supernatural  in  an 
important  sense  in  its  composition;  super- 
natural in  its  scenes ;  supernatural  in  its  doc- 
trines; supernatural  in  its  theme;  supernat- 
ural in  its  purpose.  ^^ There  is  none  like  it." 
We  have  in  it  a  Book  of  unfailing  veracity 
as  a  record  of  facts,  and  which  is  clear  and 
faithful  as  a  record  of  religious  truth,  with- 
out any  mixture  of  error ;  and  which  contains 
all  that  is  necessary  for  us  to  know,  and  all 
that  can  be  known  here  about  religion,  and 
is  the  only  rule  and  standard  which  the 
Church  has  for  faith  and  practice. 

As  there  is  a  strong  tendency  these  days, 

as  in  the  second  and  fifth  centuries,   even 

among  many  of  those  who  claim  to  regard 

highly  the  New  Testament,  to  belittle  and 

280 


People's  Bible 

disparage  the  Old,  I  might,  if  space  per- 
mitted, call  attention  to  its  great  worth;  its 
rich  historic  deposit;  its  high  ideals  of  life; 
its  devout  spirit;  its  clear  teachings  respect- 
ing sin,  the  principles  of  worship,  and  the 
plan  of  salvation;  its  wonderful  forecast  of 
the  character  and  work  of  the  Redeemer,  and 
its  clear  unfolding  of  the  doctrine  of  God. 
It  will  be  sufficient,  however,  for  most  people 
to  know  that  it  was  the  early  Christians'  true 
and  only  Bible  for  many  decades;  that  it 
was  able  then  to  make  men  wise  unto  sal- 
vation through  faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  as 
Paul  assures  us;  and  that  it  was,  in  fact, 
Christ's  own  Bible, 

If  for  no  other  reason  but  the  latter,  the 
Old  Testament  would  be  invaluable  as  a  docu- 
ment. What  it  is  now  it  was  in  His  times 
practically— the  Law  and  the  Prophets  and 
the  Writings.  Almost  all  else  that  was 
closely  associated  with  Him,  except  the  land 
and  His  race,  have  disappeared.  Even  His 
tomb  is  in  doubt.  The  Book  of  His  boyhood 
281 


God's  Bible  the 

and  of  His  manliood  and  of  His  ministry  re- 
mains. When  we  read  it  we  know  we  are 
busying  ourselves  with  what  occupied  Him, 
and  taking  in  the  thoughts  that  filled  His 
mind.  It  not  only  spoke  of  Him  from  Moses 
to  Malachi,  but  it  spoke  to  Him.  It  seems 
that  it  was  not  only  the  arsenal  to  which  He 
went  for  weapons  in  His  temptations  and  dis- 
cussions and  struggle  with  death,  and  the 
fountain  from  which  He  drew  strength  and 
comfort,  but  the  source  also  of  many  of  His 
thoughts,  His  discourses,  and  even  His  fig- 
ures of  speech.  His  use  gave  it  unusual  sanc- 
tity; and  His  reverent,  sympathetic,  and  ap- 
preciative treatment  must  always  make  it  an 
object  of  the  deepest  interest,  and  secure  for 
it  similar  treatment  on  the  part  of  all  His 
true  followers. 

We  find  in  the  New  Testament  over  eight 
hundred  quotations  from  or  allusions  to  the 
writings  of  the  Old,  which  were  made  by 
Christ  and  His  disciples,  and  yet  neither  He 
nor  they  in  any  of  these  ever  questioned  the 
282 


People's  Bible 

character  of  the  historical  books,  or  their 
truthfulness,  or  the  predictive  nature  of  the 
prophetic  portions,  or  sought  to  lessen  the 
supernatural  in  any  instance,  or  spoke  of  or 
treated  at  any  time  these  Holy  Scriptures  as 
common  literature,  or  explained  away  or 
minimized  their  meaning,  or  discredited  their 
testimony.  Christ  quoted  from  the  110th 
Psalm  as  David's  words,  and  as  referring  to 
Himself;  and  from  Isaiah  as  Isaiah's,  and  as 
foretelling  Himself.  He  affirmed  the  law  as 
Moses',  and  plainly  said,  ^^ Moses  wrote  of 
Me"  and  declared  that  ^^not  one  jot  or  tit- 
tle" of  it  should  fail  of  accomplishment. 

Not  only  did  His  nation  and  His  follow- 
ers look  upon  the  ancient  Scriptures  as  his- 
torically trustworthy,  and  as  containing  a 
Divine  revelation,  but  Christ  evidently  so  re- 
garded them  and  saw  in  them  Divine  fore- 
shadowings  of  Himself,  and  so  taught.  If  He 
had  known  such  views  to  be  false,  He  could 
not,  in  the  way  of  accommodation,  have 
spoken  as  He  did;  for  though  He  was  silent 
283 


God's  Bible  the 

about  many  things  respecting  which  men 
might  think  He  should  have  spoken,  He  never 
taught  an  untruth  or  approved  of  anything 
that  was  wrong.  To  urge  that  what  He 
thought  or  said  could  have  no  reference  to 
the  questions  now  considered  by  historical 
criticism,  as  they  were  not  then  raised,  is  to 
assume  that  He  did  not  know  the  future  of 
Scripture ;  but  leaving  that  aside  we  all  know 
that  no  better  evidence  can  be  introduced 
into  the  settlement  of  any  question  than  au- 
thoritative references  that  relate  to  it,  which 
were  made  before  the  matter  was  in  dispute. 

As  we  then  must  believe  that  Jesus  Christ 
authenticated  the  Old  Testament,  and  that 
^^As  God  He  knew  all  the  circumstances  of 
it,^^  as  Wesley  says,  we  as  Christians  are 
bound  to  accept  it  from  the  Jewish  Church 
on  His  authority. 

The  New  Testament  was  not  His  Bible  in 

the  sense  that  the  Old  was,  though  it  contains 

His  sayings,  the  events  of  His  beautiful  life, 

and  the  full  unfolding  of  His  scheme  of  re- 

284 


People's  Bible 

demption.  The  Book  comes  to  us,  so  far  as 
man\s  agency  is  concerned,  as  the  work  of 
followers  whom  He  created  into  the  Chris- 
tian Church  twenty  years  or  so  before  the 
first  portions  of  the  New  Testament  were 
written,  and  to  whom  He  gave  special  gifts, 
guidance,  revelations,  and  authority.  Christ 
Himself  was  purely  an  oral  teacher.  He 
never  wrote  a  line  of  the  New  Testament,  or 
ever  used  the  Book;  but  He  said:  ^^ Heaven 
and  earth  shall  pass  away,  but  My  words 
shall  not  pass  away;''  and  He  was  careful 
to  provide  for  the  fulfillment  of  these  signifi- 
cant words.  He  did  not  leave  the  different 
books  which  comprise  the  new  revelation  to 
be  canonically  selected  at  random,  or  to  be 
limited  by  the  literary  taste  or  historical 
sense  or  critical  acumen  of  scholars  of  any 
age,  or  the  partisan  votes  of  ecclesiastical 
councils.  The  Holy  Spirit  who  inspired  the 
apostolic  writers  enabled  the  inspired,  early 
Church  to  recognize  what  was  Scripture,  and 
to  sift  out  these  writings  from  the  spurious 
285 


God's  Bible  the 

mass  of  religious  literature  which  abounded 
at  that  time,  in  accordance  with  the  promise, 
*  *  He  shall  guide  you  into  all  truth ; '  ^  and  the 
same  Holy  Spirit  which  always  dwells  in  the 
spiritually-illumined  Christian  Church  has 
enabled  her  ever  since  to  recognize  these 
books,  as  well  as  the  canonical  books  of  the 
Old  Testament,  as  the  inspired  Word  of  God. 

Competent  and  fair-minded  scholarship 
must  allow  that  this  subjective  proof— this 
impression  which  the  Bible  and  its  contents 
make  upon  the  minds  of  regenerated  Chris- 
tian men,  is  to  them  irresistible  evidence  of 
the  Divine  origin  and  character  and  author- 
ity of  all  the  books  of  the  Bible  in  spite  of 
all  the  objections  which  criticism  may  raise. 

As  a  matter  of  course  it  required  much 
time  to  gather  together  these  widely  scattered 
writings;  but  from  all  that  can  be  learned 
from  ancient  manuscripts,  from  the  testi- 
mony of  the  Fathers  and  contemporary 
heathen  writers,  and  from  the  records  of 
Church  Councils,  all  the  canonical  books  of 
286 


People's  Bible 

the  New  Testament  must  have  been  accepted 
by  the  true  Church,  there  being  only  a  few 
heretical  objectors,  before  the  close  of  the 
first  century,  or  soon  after.  The  Church 
Councils  of  whose  proceedings  we  have  any 
certain  knowledge  did  not  determine  the 
canon  of  Scripture;  they  witnessed  to  what 
had  been  recognized  and  settled  before,  and 
had  been  received  from  those  who  preceded 
them ;  and  they  in  their  turn  registered  their 
indorsement  of  the  same.  Of  the  ^^author- 
ity" of  the  ^*  canonical  books  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments  ^Hhere  was  never  any  doubt 
in  the  Church,''  as  the  Articles  of  Religion 
affirm.  And  as  we  receive  the  Old  Testament 
from  the  Jewish  Church  on  the  authority  of 
Jesus  Christ,  we  receive  the  New  Testament, 
as  individuals,  from  the  Christian  Church  on 
the  authority  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  still 
dwells  in  the  Church,  and  who  also  bears  wit- 
ness to  the  Divine  character  of  all  these  books 
in  our  own  hearts. 

This  implies  that  the  Church  has  some  re- 
287 


God^s  Bible  the 

sponsibility  and  authority  as  custodian  and 
interpreter  of  the  Word  of  God  above  even 
that  of  our  modern  scholars.  It  would  be 
strange,  indeed,  if  the  Church,  having  been 
created  and  commissioned  by  Jesus  Christ, 
and  having  been  empowered  and  equipped  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  having  a  splendid  his- 
tory of  nineteen  centuries  behind  her,  should 
now  be  superseded  in  the  most  important 
matters  in  connection  with  the  Holy  Oracles, 
so  long  confided  to  her  care  by  a  clique  of 
scholars  who  have  received  their  strange, 
revolutionary,  so-called  modern  view  from 
deistic,  rationalistic,  or  agnostic  sources. 

She  has  authority,  and  because  of  this  she 
has  a  grave  duty  to  perform  in  this  great 
crisis  of  her  history ;  viz.,  to  resist  the  time- 
spirit,  to  entertain  no  novelties  regarding  the 
Bible,  and  to  hand  down  to  future  gener- 
ations the  faith  unchanged  and  unimpaired 
which  was  once  delivered  to  the  saints. 

It  is  evident  that  Jesus  Christ  purposes 
to  perpetuate  His  truth  by  means  of  His 
288 


People's  Bible 

Church  and  the  written  Word,  and  not 
through  the  one  without  the  other.  He  re- 
pudiated tradition,  but  magnified  Scripture. 
^^It  is  written, '^  was  almost  a  formula  with 
Him ;  and  He  claimed  that  His  Church  would 
overcome  all  opposition.  But  the  Bible  and 
the  Church  are  necessary  to  each  other.  The 
Bible  needs  the  Church  to  perpetuate,  trans- 
late, and  circulate  it,  and  to  interpret  its 
fixed  forms  of  thought  to  the  ever-changing 
minds  of  men. 

The  Church,  on  the  other  hand,  is  subject 
to  change  in  belief  and  life ;  and  if  revelation 
were  simply  a  voice  or  a  tradition  it  would 
probably  soon  be  lost,  as  the  first  revelation, 
which  was  oral,  was  lost  to  all  but  one  family. 
As  long,  however,  as  she  holds  closely  and 
firmly  to  this  revelation  of  Divine  truth, 
which  is  complete  and  final  and  expressed  in 
unalterable,  permanent  terms,  and  recorded 
in  the  Book,  and  remains  imbued  with  its 
spirit,  though  she  may  get  fresh  light  from 
the  Word,  expand  in  thought,  change  her  ver- 
19  289 


God's  Bible  the 

nacTilar  or  formulas,  and  restate  her  doc- 
trines, she  will  perpetuate  the  truth,  and  can 
never  differ  very  much  from  what  her  Cre- 
ator intended  she  should  be.  She  is  the  true 
Church  always,  only  so  far  as  her  faith  and 
life  are  substantially  identical  with  her 
Sacred  Book.  Ours,  in  a  large  sense,  is  a 
Book  Eeligion. 

The  Church,  though  not  always  faithful 
to  her  trust,  has  usually  given  much  intelli- 
gent and  conscientious  thought  and  attention 
to  the  written  "Word,  and  until  recent  times 
has  presented  almost  an  unbroken  front  to 
its  enemies.  From  the  completion  of  the 
Book  until  now  her  best  scholars,  in  seeking 
to  know  what  it  is  and  what  it  contains,  have 
scrutinized  it  from  end  to  end.  They  have 
turned  over  every  word;  analyzed  every 
chapter;  searched  into  the  origin,  date,  au- 
thorship, and  trustworthiness  of  all  the  docu- 
ments ;  have  inquired  carefully  into  their  lit- 
erary and  historical  characters  and  doctrinal 
and  ethical  teaching;  and  welcomed  light 
290 


People's  Bible 

from  every  source.  Our  King  James  Ver- 
sion was  the  work  of  tlie  most  erudite  stu- 
dents of  their  day.  Both  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments  have  passed  in  our  own  day 
through  the  hands  of  many  of  our  most 
prominent  Biblical  scholars,  and  after  years 
of  the  closest  investigation  and  research  they 
have  returned  them  to  us  with  some  unhappy 
verbal  changes  and  a  few  unnecessary  omis- 
sions, but  substantially  as  they  found  them, 
without  any  marked  evidence  of  distrust  as  to 
their  Divine  character,  their  doctrinal  worth, 
or  their  general  historical  reliability. 

Tom  Paine  wrote:  *'I  have  now  gone 
through  the  Bible  as  a  man  would  go  through 
a  wood  with  an  ax  on  his  shoulder  and  fell 
trees.  Here  they  lie ;  and  the  priests,  if  they 
can,  may  replant  them.  They  may  perhaps 
stick  them  in  the  ground ;  but  they  will  never 
make  them  grow."  The  critics  exhibit  the 
same  boastful  spirit,  and  ask,  ^^What  has  the 
higher  criticism  left  us  of  the  Bible?"  Not- 
withstanding the  answer  suggested,  the  Bible 
291 


God's  Bible  the 

to  most  of  us  is  what  it  has  ever  been.  If  the 
critics  have  put  it  through  their  crucible,  they 
have  not  destroyed  it,  except  for  themselves 
and  those  who  accept  their  decisions.  The 
assured  destructive  results  of  higher  crit- 
icism have  no  existence.  The  Bible  is  still 
an  unbroken  forest.  Not  even  a  twig  is 
felled.  The  old  worthies  are  not  yet  myths, 
or  even  eponymous  heroes;  they  still  stand 
along  the  line  of  the  ages  like  sentinels 
watching,  while  their  generations  sleep.  The 
prophecies  are  written  there  still ;  many  ful- 
filled in  Christ,  others  yet  pointing  to  the 
future.  The  theophanies  have  not  lost  their 
heavenly  brightness,  nor  the  miracles  their 
supernatural  character,  nor  any  part  of  the 
entire  Book  its  Divine  impress.  The  history 
of  the  race  is  still  an  unbroken  chain— reach- 
ing down  to  ' '  Seth  who  was  the  son  of  Adam 
who  was  the  son  of  God."  The  story  of  the 
fall,  the  promises  of  redemption,  the  plan  of 
salvation,  the  record  of  the  virgin  birth,  the 
sacrificial  death,  the  open  tomb,  and  the 
292 


People's  Bible 

tongues  of  fire  are  all  there,  and  no  intima- 
tion of  a  forged  document.  Moses  still  writes 
and  legislates;  David  sings  psalms;  Isaiah, 
undivided,  portrays  the  Christ;  Daniel,  not 
yet  a  fiction,  stands  in  his  lot  and  place ;  and 
even  Jonah,  though  he  has  had  a  stormy  time, 
has  not  yet  faded  into  allegorical  mist. 

The  critics  call  their  production  the  schol- 
ar ^s  Bible;  but  the  true  Bible  is  still  the 
People's  Bible.  It  was  not  especially  de- 
signed for  scholars,  but  for  men.  It  is  in 
their  language  and  for  their  use.  It  ad- 
dresses men  much  as  Luther  claimed  he  did 
when  he  used  these  words :  '  ^  I  take  no  notice 
of  the  Doctors  who  are  present,  of  whom 
there  may  be  twelve;  I  preach  to  the  young 
men  and  maidens,  and  the  poor,  of  whom 
there  are  two  thousand. ' '  There  was  a  time 
when  the  learned  alone  could  read  it;  when 
the  scholastic  priest  alone  dare  interpret  it; 
and  when  the  rich  alone  could  own  it.  That 
day  is  happily  past.  The  promise  which  Tyn- 
dale  made  in  reply  to  a  scoffing  scholar  of  his 
293 


God's  Bible  the 

day,  when  lie  said,  ^ '  If  God  spare  my  life,  ere 
many  years  I  will  cause  a  boy  that  drives  the 
plow  shall  know  more  of  the  Scriptures  than 
thou  dost,''  has  been  made  good.  He  trans- 
lated it,  and  the  printing-press  has  put  it  into 
the  hands  of  plowmen,  bakers,  masons, 
miners,  tanners,  and  weavers— an  open  Book 
for  each  man's  scrutiny  and  use;  and  the  best 
things  in  it  may  be  better  understood  by 
these  if  they  are  enlightened  by  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and  have  heart-faith,  than  by  the 
learned  who  lack  these  qualifications. 

"Give  me  a  theme,"  a  little  critic  cried, 

"And  I  will  do  my  part." 
"  'T  is  not  a  theme  you  need,"  the  world  replied ; 

"  You  need  a  heart." 

It  is  not  the  clearest  or  biggest  brain,  cov- 
ered with  a  quizzing  cap,  that  gets  the  most 
out  of  the  Bible ;  but  the  head  and  heart  that 
are  the  most  fully  under  the  influence  of  Him 
who  inspired  the  Book.  It  is  this  same  influ- 
ence, more  than  scholarship,  that  enables  the 
Christian  world  to  distinguish  the  true  canon* 
294 


People's  Bible 

Scholarly  investigation  and  interpreta- 
tion often  sterilize  the  good  seed— often 
wither  and  bury  the  life  in  the  Word.  ' '  Most 
of  the  Homeric  and  Dantean  and  Shakespear- 
ian scholarship,'^  says  a  discriminating 
writer,  ^4s  the  mere  dust  of  time.''  Why? 
Because  the  pedants,  instead  of  busying 
themselves  with  what  these  splendid  works 
contain,  have  been  covering  them  over  with 
their  own  literature.  How  heavy  and  thick 
this  kind  of  dust  lies  on  the  Bible !  The  New 
Scholarship  is  merely  a  new  layer,  or  a  new 
parasitical  growth  that  covers  and  obscures 
and  kills  it  as  certain  mosses  do  tropical 
trees. 

It  is  very  evident  that  it  was  never  in- 
tended that  we  should  be  benefited  by  crit- 
icising the  Holy  Scriptures,  but  by  allowing 
them  to  criticise  us;  or  that  they  should  be 
mainly  a  sphere  of  scholarship,  but  rather  a 
means  of  grace. 

Make  them  a  simple  sphere  of  intellectual 
activity  or  of  scholarly  display,  and  you 
295 


God's  Bible  the 

transfer  religion  from  the  heart  to  the  head, 
which  is  like  carrying  fire  from  the  hearth  up 
into  the  chimney,  where  it  is  extinguished  in 
smoke;  in  this  instance  in  volumes— vast  vol- 
umes—of scholarly  Scriptural  smoke. 

This  generation  is  suffering  much  loss 
through  the  persistent  effort  that  is  being 
made  in  our  theological  schools  and  else- 
where to  lead  people  to  study  about  the  Bible, 
rather  than  the  Bible  itself.  Its  wealth  lies 
in  what  it  contains  and  what  it  conveys. 

We  are  told  of  an  art  critic  who,  seeing  a 
fountain  by  the  roadside,  instead  of  refresh- 
ing himself  and  calling  the  attention  of  others 
to  the  abundant  supply  of  cool  water,  busied 
himself  in  finding  fault  with  its  design,  al- 
though it  had  been  put  there  by  a  benevolent 
man,  not  to  minister  to  men's  artistic  tastes, 
but  their  natural  wants.  Our  Bible  is  God's 
fountain  of  truth,  and  He  invites  men  to  it, 
not  to  pass  upon  its  origin  or  structure,  or 
to  admire  or  criticise  its  literary  or  artistic 
elements,  or  to  extol  or  disparage  its  worth, 
296 


People's  Bible 

but  to  quench  their  spiritual  thirst.  And  I 
imagine  that  He  is  not  very  much  elated  when 
critical  virtuosos  praise  its  beauties,  or  de- 
pressed when  they  point  out  what  they  so 
loudly  claim  are  its  defects.  Like  the  man 
who  placed  the  fountain  by  the  wayside,  He 
is  anxious  only  that  the  multitude,  and  even 
the  critics,  may  drink,  and  drink  deeply.  The 
cry  of  the  fountain  itself  is  the  same  as 
Christ's  when  He  lifted  up  His  voice  in  the 
Temple,  ''If  any  man  thirst  let  him  come 
unto  Me  and  drink.'' 

Hosts  of  the  common  people  have  heard 
the  call,  and  have  drunk  freely  of  this  Divine 
fountain  of  life  and  truth;  not  only  these— 
many  of  the  best  scholars  and  the  greatest 
thinkers,  and  all  the  noblest  souls— men,  the 
best  able  to  judge,  like  Milton,  Pascal,  New- 
ton, Edwards,  John  Quincy  Adams,  and  Glad- 
stone—have largely  lived  intellectually  and 
spiritually  on  this  Book. 

The  injury  which  criticism  is  doing  in 
turning  the  minds  of  so  many  from  the  study 
297 


God's  Bible  the 

of  such  a  Book  to  the  consideration  of  its 
own  puerile  and  false  views  concerning  it  is 
immeasurable;  for  in  doing  this  it  is  turning 
men's  gaze  away  from  the 

"  Star  of  Eternity  I  the  only  star 
By  which  the  bark  of  man  can  navigate 
The  sea  of  life  and  gain  the  coast  of  bliss, 
Securely  1" 

The  greatest  damage,  however,  which  it 
does  lies  in  the  doubts  it  suggests  and  nour- 
ishes in  the  minds  of  men  regarding  the 
Bible.  It  is  doing  this  with  persistent  en- 
ergy, and  with  results  that  threaten  to  be 
fatal  to  evangelical  Christianity.  Even  in  its 
mildest  forms  higher  criticism  is  destructive 
in  this  way ;  perhaps  more  so  than  when  it  as- 
sumes a  more  warlike  appearance. 

It  is  well  to  keep  in  mind  that  criticism 
is  destructive,  not  because  it  destroys  Scrip- 
ture, but  because  it  destroys  men's  confidence 
in  the  Scriptures  as  the  Word  of  God. 

The  Bible  is  indestructible.  The  fires  of 
criticism  may  destroy  the  fables  of  the  Shas- 
298 


People's  Bible 

ters  or  the  lies  of  the  Book  of  Mormon;  but 
not  the  Bible.  ^^The  words  of  the  Lord  are 
pure  words;  as  silver  tried  in  a  furnace  of 
earth  purified  seven  times/ ^*  It  could  stand 
the  seven-fold  test  of  David's  day,  and  proves 
itself  inconsumable  in  our  day. 

It  neither  needs  nor  dreads  the  critic's 
crucible.  Notwithstanding  all  the  attacks 
made  upon  its  integrity,  it  is  still  what  the 
evangelical  Gladstone  called  it,  ^^The  Im- 
pregnable Roch.'^  It  stands  to-day  like 
Mont  BJanc,  facing  the  mysteries  of  time 
and  eternity,  and  remains  unmoved  by  the 
storms  of  unbelief,  which  swell  about  its  foun- 
dation facts,  or  which  constantly  beat  about 
its  glorious  Head,  who  is  the  strength  and 
majesty  and  crown  of  it  all.  Well  may  Dr. 
Bonar  sing: 

"A  thousand  hammers  keen 
With  fiery  force  and  strain 
Brought  down  on  it  in  rage  and  hate 
Have  struck  this  gem  in  vain.'* 


♦Psalm  xll,  6. 

299 


God's  Bible  the 

*' Destroy  the  Bible,"  says  Dr.  L.  W. 
Munhall;  ''one  might  as  well  talk  of  puny 
man  blotting  the  sun  out  of  the  sky.'** 

Not  long  ago  I  crossed  an  old  Roman 
bridge  which  spans  one  of  the  sources  of  the 
Jordan.  Its  solidity  has  been  tested  by  the 
heaviest  pressure  for  centuries.  The  im- 
mense weight  of  greatly  burdened  camel  car- 
avans and  of  the  mighty  armies  of  Imperial 
Eome,  of  the  Crusaders,  the  Saracens,  and 
the  Turks  have  tried  its  sustaining  power. 
Yet  that  old  Eoman  bridge  stands  to-day 
comparatively  firm,  affected  apparently  only 
by  the  waste  and  wear  of  years.  This  Book— 
this  high  passage-way  from  the  seen  to  the 
unseen— has  had  on  it  from  the  first  thou- 
sands of  pagan  and  infidel  scholars ;  and  then 
all  atheistical  France  and  all  rationalistic 
Germany ;  and  now  the  ponderous  tonnage  of 
all  to-day's  heavy-weights  and  feather- 
weights of  science,  philosophy,  and  higher 
criticism,  confessed  enemies  and  professed 

-  The  Highest  Critics  vs.  The  Higher  Critics  p.  96. 

300 


People's  Bible 

friends,— all  crowded  over  every  square  inch 
of  its  road-bed  testing  its  strength. 

So  far  as  I  can  see,  it  remains  solid  and 
firm.  Its  foundations  are  unshif ted ;  the  key- 
stone of  every  arch  is  in  place ;  the  buttresses 
all  stand  plumb;  there  is  not  a  crack  or  a 
crevice  in  the  walls ;  there  is  not  a  mark  even 
of  the  old  tooth  of  time,  nor  a  vibration 
noticeable  anywhere.  There  are  no  indica- 
tions of  instability.  This  end  rests  on  mass- 
ive, incontrovertible  facts,  which  appeal  with 
undiminished  force  to  the  human  reason  and 
spirit ;  and  which  are  guaranteed  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.  The  other  end  rests,  I  believe,  on  the 
Rock  of  Ages.  I  feel  quite  safe  myself  in 
resting  my  faith  on  its  strength,  and  I  have 
absolute  confidence  that  through  God's  grace 
it  will  carry  me  dryshod  to  the  eternal  shore. 

"  How  firm  a  foundation  ye  saints  of  the  Lord 
Is  laid  for  your  faith  in  His  excellent  Word." 


301 


Epilogue 


"Earnestly  contend  for  the  faith  once  delivered  to 
the  saints." — Jude. 


Epilogue 

Theee  is  no  need  for  alarm  respecting 
the  future  of  the  Word  of  God ;  it  can  not  be 
destroyed.  ^'The  Word  of  our  God  shall 
stand  forever.''*  There  is,  however,  much 
reason  for  grave  apprehension  lest  the  tide- 
wave  of  unbelief,  which  is  rising  so  high  at 
present,  should  roll  up  and  over  all  obstruc- 
tions, and  ''bury  the  old  landmarks  of  Chris- 
tian faith"  for  the  time  at  least. 

Dr.  Francis  L.  Patton,  who  is  no  hyster- 
ical alarmist,  referring  to  the  dangers  of  the 
hour,  says:  *'The  crisis  in  which  we  are  to- 
day is  the  greatest  war  of  intellect  that  has 
ever  been  waged  since  the  birth  of  the  Naza- 
rene."  The  forces  in  this  ''war,''  opposed 
to  evangelical  Christianity,  were  never  in  all 

*  Isaiah  xl,  8. 

20  305 


Earnestly  Contend 

her  history  better  equipped,  more  skillfully 
handled,  or  strategically  placed,  or  more  ac- 
tively engaged  than  now.  Quite  a  proportion 
of  them  are  in  her  own  ranks ;  carry  her  flag 
and  wear  her  uniform.  There  was  a  time 
when  they  stood  outside  the  fortress  they 
wished  to  destroy;  now  they  stand  within. 
They  are  doing  in  their  various  Churches 
very  much  what  the  enemies  of  our  Federal 
Union  sought  to  do  just  before  the  breaking 
out  of  the  Civil  War— scattering  and  weaken- 
ing our  forces,  seizing  our  forts  and  arsenals 
and  our  West  Points.  They  are  using  every 
possible  form  of  propaganda.  They  are 
quietly  at  work  in  our  denominational  insti- 
tutions of  learning,  and  are  constantly  send- 
ing out  students  charged  with  their  destruc- 
tive views.  Bishop  S.  M.  Merrill  does  not 
overstate  the  facts  when,  referring  to  this 
phase  of  the  question,  he  says :  ^ '  A  large  num- 
ber of  young  men  come  out  of  the  schools 
inclined  to  discredit  the  authority  of  much 
306 


for  the  Faith 

that  is  in  the  Bible.  They  speak  lightly,  if 
not  sneeringly,  of  what  experienced  Chris- 
tians hold  sacred."  They  publish  or  apol- 
ogize for  their  sentiments  in  the  pulpit,  and 
are  endeavoring  to  popularize  them  on  Chau- 
tauquan,  Christian  Endeavor,  Epworth 
League,  and  Young  Men's  Christian  Asso- 
ciation platforms. 

They  are  publishing  extensive  Bible  Dic- 
tionaries and  Encyclopedias,  and  their  views 
obtain  currency  through  the  *^ Expositor's 
Bible, ' '  and  other  works  of  a  much  more  rad- 
ical character.  Their  books  and  magazines 
are  very  numerous,  and  their  critical  works  of 
a  popular  kind,  often  unlabeled,  are  finding 
their  way  into  the  hands  of  the  common  peo- 
ple. They  worm  their  views  into  our  Sunday- 
school  literature,  and  are  making  a  serious 
effort  to  control  the  work  of  the  International 
Sunday-school  Committee.  While  they  seem 
to  overawe  the  denominational  papers  that 
are  opposed  to  them  into  profound  silence, 
307 


Earnestly  Contend 

they  boldly  advocate  their  revolutionary 
opinions  in  those  that  are  friendly,  and  flood 
the  daily  press  with  their  attacks  and  de- 
fenses. 

Bishop  W.  F.  Mallalieu,  a  wise,  calm, 
world-wide  observer,  sees  great  danger  in  all 
this.  After  referring  to  men  who  ^^  assume 
to  be  ^advanced  thinkers,^  ^progressive  the- 
ologians,' 4iigher  critics,'  'profound  schol- 
ars,' '  abreast-of-the-age,  up-to-date  investi- 
gators of  all  knowledge,'  "  he  uses  these 
words :  ' '  It  is  a  cause  of  unspeakable  regret 
that  any  man  holding  these  views  should  be 
tolerated  in  any  evangelical  pulpit  or  school 
of  theology,  for  the  ultimate  outcome  will  be 
as  baleful  as  the  exhalations  of  the  deadly 
upas-tree. ' ' 

It  is  very  apparent  to  not  a  few  that  these 
disturbers  of  the  peace  of  God's  people  will 
not  require,  should  they  be  still  tolerated, 
many  years  through  these  various  agencies 
to  disrupt  our  Churches,  or  to  destroy  their 
evangelical  character.  Many  of  the  critics 
308 


for  the  Faith 

themselves  are  free  to  say  that  ten  more 
years  of  work  like  that  accomplished  during 
the  past  decade  would  complete  their  task. 
Others  of  them  attempt  to  show  us  that  there 
is  no  cause  for  alarm.  One  of  these  oracu- 
larly tells  us:  ^^ There  is  little  danger  from 
the  most  extreme  conclusions  of  criticism  as 
long  as  saints  are  common."* 

Common  sense  teaches  us  that  it  is  no 
more  foolish  to  wait  until  most  of  the  people 
are  diseased  before  we  fear  a  threatening 
plague,  than  it  is  to  wait  until  saints  are 
scarce  before  we  dread  the  evil  effects  of 
higher  criticism.  When  saints  become  un- 
common, there  will  be  too  few  of  them  to  ef- 
fect much  against  the  growing  unbelief  of  the 
multitude. 

Too  many  good  people— even  Church 
leaders— seem  to  think  that  the  truth  needs 
no  defense,  and  that  their  denominations  are 
safe,  no  matter  how  much  unbelief  and  sin 
are  tolerated  within  them.    The  people  who 

♦Rlshell,  The  Higher  Criticism,  p.  275. 
309 


Earnestly  Contend 

sang  some  time  ago  at  the  dedication  of  a 
church  in  New  England  this  doggerel  verse: 

"  The  world,  the  devil,  and  Tom  Paine ; 
To  spoil  our  work  have  tried  in  vain,' 
The  reason  why  they  failed  is  this : 
The  Lord  takes  care  of  Methodists." 

expressed  the  false  confidence  of  very  many. 
Men  fail  to  keep  in  mind  that  God  protects 
and  perpetuates  His  truth,  as  He  propagates 
it,  through  human  co-operation.  Evangel- 
ical Christians  can,  if  they  will  assmne  an  air 
of  indifference,  ignore  the  changes  which  are 
going  on  in  religions  thought  and  feeling,  and 
do  nothing,  and  await  the  deluge.  Is  it  wise 
to  do  so? 

When  the  Eepublican  Party  waked  up  a 
few  years  ago  to  the  fact  that  free  silver  ideas 
had  been  earnestly  and  intelligently  propa- 
gated among  the  people  until  their  harmony 
and  supremacy  as  a  political  party  were 
threatened  with  destruction,  they  lost  no  time 
in  preparing  for  the  inevitable  struggle.  A 
thorough  and  an  intelligent  system  of  popu- 
310 


for  the  Faith 

lar  education  was  begun  in  regard  to  fiscal 
and  other  questions,  and  a  thorough  reorgan- 
ization was  everywhere  effected.  There  were 
some  serious  conflicts  within  the  party,  and 
some  tearful  partings;  but  the  leaders  be- 
lieved they  were  right,  and  they  promptly  and 
boldly  met  the  issue. 

Ours  is  a  much  more  important  and  vital 
question  than  that  of  hard  or  soft  money.  It 
is  our  evangelical  faith  that  is  in  question— 
what  a  pure,  vital  Christianity  has  stood  for, 
all  these  centuries.  Has  not  the  time  come 
for  all  those  who  love  the  old  Bible  to  stand 
kindly  but  boldly  for  its  defense,  and  for  a 
clear  and  definite  affirmation  of  their  faith 
in  evangelical  Christianity,  whether  they  be 
ministers  or  laymen? 

Ours  is  an  age  of  doubt  and  danger.  As- 
saults are  being  made  on  our  religion  by  its 
supposed  friends,  which  threaten  to  shake  its 
historical  foundations ;  for  the  conflict  is  now 
in  this  country  much  as  it  was  in  Germany 
thirty  years  ago,  when  Christlieb  claimed 
311 


Earnestly  Contend 

tliat  it  was  removed  from  ^Hlie  field  of  specu- 
lative reasoning  to  that  of  historical  criticism 
of  the  origines  of  Christianity/' 

And  would  it  not  be  a  fatal  mistake  for 
the  American  Church  to  continue  to  follow 
the  example  of  the  German  Church  of  Christ- 
lieb's  day,  of  which  he  said:  ^'She  has  fa- 
vored the  advance  of  unbelief  among  her  own 
people  by  quietly  looking  on,  when  she  ought 
to  have  been  up  and  doing  T' 

There  are  many  who  see  no  reason  for 
special  activity  now,  because  they  fail  to  re- 
alize the  greatness  of  the  danger,  as  it  is 
internal  and  not  external.  There  is  a  queer 
legend  of  a  mountain  which  one  man  on  one 
side  was  trying  to  overturn  with  a  handspike, 
and  which  another  man  on  the  other  side 
was  in  alarm  endeavoring  to  prop  up  with  a 
stick.  It  was  in  great  danger  all  the  time; 
but  not  from  the  effort  of  its  external  foe,  but 
because  it  was  harboring  within  it  a  sleeping 
volcano,  which  ultimately  awoke  and  utterly 
destroyed  it.  The  Church  is  impregnable 
312 


for  the  Faith 

against  outside  enemies;  but  as  long  as  she 
tolerates  these  false  Scriptural  views  and 
their  accompanying  rationalism  within  her- 
self, she  is  harboring  her  own  ruin.  The 
evangelical  Churches  of  Germany,  Holland, 
and  France  did  this,  and  we  all  know  the  de- 
moralization which  followed.  The  Dissent- 
ing Churches  in  England,  and  the  evangelical 
portion  of  the  Established  Church;  and  the 
United  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland  are 
doing  the  same  with  the  same  results.  The 
Presbyterian  Church  in  this  country,  on  the 
contrary,  has  met  the  issues  intelligently  and 
boldly,  and  by  doing  so  she  has  greatly 
strengthened  herself  as  an  organization  and 
as  a  spiritual  and  evangelistic  agency;  and 
has  fought  a  winning  battle  for  all  the 
Churches  that  will  follow  her  noble  example. 
Some  of  our  denominational  bodies,  how- 
ever, seem  to  be  losing  their  old-time  vigor 
and  enthusiasm,  because  they  are  not  aggres- 
sive against  these  forms  of  unbelief,  and  have 
adopted  a  peace-at-any-price  policy,  and 
313 


Earnestly  Contend 

pride  themselves  in  the  large  liberty  they  al- 
low, forgetting  that  truth  is  never  tolerant 
toward  error,  and  that  a  good  cause  gains 
nothing  by  compromise. 

In  almost  all  our  denominations  a  strange 
apathy  prevails  respecting  this  unhappy  con- 
dition that  exists.  Perhaps  it  is  the  apathy 
^caused  by  the  threatening  danger,  as  danger 
often  has  a  hypnotic  power,  as  it  seemed  to 
have  over  the  Pompeiians  and  the  inhabitants 
about  Pelee  before  they  were  overwhelmed 
in  ruin. 

The  danger  will  not,  however,  last  long  if 
God's  people  will  but  realize  its  presence,  and 
arise  and  '' earnestly  contend  for  the  faith 
once  delivered  to  the  saints.''  A  little  over 
a  century  ago  the  clouds  of  religious  doubt 
hung  heavy  and  thick  all  over  this  country 
through  the  importation  of  French  infidelity, 
as  they  do  now  through  the  importation  of 
German  rationalistic  criticism.  Unbelief  was 
especially  prevalent  in  Yale  College,  as  it  is 
to-day  in  too  many  of  our  denominational 
314 


for  the  Faith 

educational  institutions— so  much  so  that  the 
students  actually  proposed  to  the  Faculty  for 
discussion  the  question,  ^^Is  the  Bible  the 
Word  of  Godf  The  challenge  was  accepted 
by  President  Timothy  Dwight  himself,  and 
'*  he  so  ably,"  we  are  told,  *' presented  to  his 
hearers  the  proofs  of  the  genuineness,  au- 
thenticity, and  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures 
as  to  root  out  infidelity  in  Yale  College." 
Hundreds  of  Timothy  Dwights  are  needed 
nowadays,  not  only  at  Yale  but  all  over  the 
land,  from  Sea-blown  Boston  in  the  East, 
to  the  Golden  Gate  in  the  West.  If  there  is 
anything  for  which  men  should  contend,  it 
is  the  living  and  eternal  truth  of  God.  Its 
value  to  the  world  can  not  be  overestimated. 
Its  influence  for  good  upon  the  past  and  pres- 
ent ages  has  been  immeasurable,  and  ''each 
succeeding  generation,"  as  Goethe  expresses 
it,  ''will  renew  its  youth  in  the  Bible,  and  the 
standard  for  the  life  and  power  of  a  people 
will  be  the  measure  of  that  people's  faithful- 
ness to  the  precepts  of  the  Bible.  Let  mental 
315 


Earnestly  Contend 

culture  increase  and  science  spread  and 
deepen;  let  the  Spirit  of  man  broaden  as  it 
will— the  majesty  and  the  morality  of  Chris- 
tianity as  it  shines  forth  in  the  Gospels  will 
never  be  surpassed.'' 

Such  a  Word  must  stand  when  everything 
else  fails ;  and  the  man  that  stands  by  it  can 
not  fail,  nor  will  he  stand  alone.  As  Luther 
sang : 

"  The  Word  of  God  will  never  yield 
To  any  creature  living ; 
He  stands  with  us  upon  the  field 
His  grace  and  Spirit  giving." 


General  Index 


Page. 

Abbott,   Li 

26,  69,  70,  116,  232,  235 

Abraham    12,  35,  191 

Acts    of    the    Apostles.  .143,  264 

Adam    36,  107 

Adeney    232 

Amos    139 

Anderson,  Sir  Robert. 

21.229.  243 

Antaeus    106 

Archaeological  Discoveries, 

47.  189,  241-251 

Ark  of  the  Covenant 85 

Arnold,     Matthew 200 

Astruc   183 

Authority  rejected 161,  272 


Baur    

Beet,    Agar 

Bey,    Brugsch 

Bible. 

Authoritative    

78,  119,  163,  217, 

Authors    of 

A    Christless 

A    Defective 145,147, 

A  Fountain 

Discrepancies  of 

Fallible  if  not  inspired.  .  . 

God's     72,277, 

Indestructible 11, 

Inspiration   of 72, 

Integrity  of 

199,  227,  252,  253, 

Infallibility  of  impugned, 

104. 

If   erroneous 157, 

Jefferson's    170, 

New  Testament 

Old   Testament 

Orthodox    

People's    

Scholars'    134, 

Science   and   the.  165,  182, 

Unique    71, 

Versions    of 

Bissell     22, 


20,  67,  201 

12t 

247 


252 
265 
173 
257 
296 
258 
70 
305 
298 
253 


267 

217 
253 
171 
286 
281 
154 
293 
293 
257 
280 
291 
244 


Page. 

Black,    Cheyne   and 172 

Bonar,   Dr 299 

Bowne,    B.    P 114.125 

Briggs     ...22,35,44,70,108, 

133,  166,  171.  197,  218,  266 

Browning 167 

Buddha    190 


Calvin    

Canaan,    Civilization    of..  5  4 

Canon    254,  289, 

Carlstadt     

Casey,    Gen 

Cave,     Principal 

Cheyne    110, 

Children.     Education  of .  .  .  . 
232. 
Christ. 

Relation  of  to  history.  .  .  . 

Culminates    in 

Views   of   Old    Testament, 
88 

His   Bible *. 

His    conceDtion    of    Chris- 
tianity    

Resurrection    of 

Relation  to  O.  T.  history. 

Authority    of 220, 

His   reference   to   Jonah.  . 

His  testimony   to   the   Old 
Testament    

Was    God 91  et 

Opposition    to 

A    dubious 

Christian    Science 

Christlieb    

Chronicles    

35.  80.  140,  198, 
Church,    The 43, 

Duty    of 287,  288, 

Foundations  of 

In    danger 

Churches.        See    Denomina- 
tional  names. 

Clarke,   Adam 

Clay,   A.   T 

Congregationalists    


23 
,  55 
290 

19 
127 
196 
207 

:i07 

42 
54 

117 

281 

115 
116 
150 

272 
269 

271 
beq 
122 
151 
112 
311 

243 
,  08 
290 
127 
311 


193 
125 


317 


General  Index 


Page. 
Code,    Priests'.  .  .48,  52,  247,  267 

Corinthians    143 

Cremer    152 

Cromwell     206 

Criticism,    Biblical 24,  226 

Criticism.  Higher. 

Absurdity    of 12,62,117 

Assumptions,    dogmas, 

etc.,    of 22-27 

Destructive     166 

Difficulties    of 259 

Failure    of 186 

History  of 19 

Infallibility  claimed  for.  . 

61.  168.  108,  217 

Injury    of 297 

Meaning   of 22 

Opposes   the   supernatural 

67  et  seq 

Revival   extinguisher 120 

Sober   57 

Supernaturalistic   21 

Undermines    faith..  .  .109,  298 
Criticism,    lower   or   textual. 

23.  239.  277 

Criticism,    newer 23,  109 

Critics. 

Character   of 262 

Classified    21 

Constructive   higher 31 

Historic  and  Literary .  56,  127 
Orthodox    229 

Dale    123 

Dana 249,  250,  257 

Daniel     81,141,198,263,293 

Dates,    Value    of 198,261 

David    93,  100,  141,  293 

Dawson,  Sir  Wm 94,  249 

Delitzsch    193,  279 

Deluge    52,  249,  256 

Denney     162 

Deuteronomy    .......  48,  52,  140 

Diatessaron,    Tatian's 239 

Discoveries.       See      Archae- 
oloeical. 

Doctrines,    Essential 13 

Document    theory,     The.  47,  139 

Dods,    M 37 

Douglas    230,244 

Driver    22,  70 

Drummond 167 

Duff,    A 44 

Dumas   49,105 


Page. 
Dutch  Reformed  Church... 22 8 
Dwight,    Timothy 315 

Ecclesiastes 141 

Ecclesiasticus,  Cairene 188 

Eddy,    Mary    Baker 122 

Eichhorn    19,  20,  183 

Ellis,    Geo.    E 153 

Ephesians    136 

Esther 80,  141 

Evolution 

And    Higher    Criticism...    36 

Theory  of 33 

Failure   of 50 

Not    Pauline 73 

A   scientific  fad 30 

Christ's    relation    to 43 

Theory  of.  Masterful....      68 

Misapplied 56,  138 

Ewald    59,  183,  233 

Exodus    79,  248 

Ezra     140,255,261 

Fairbairn,    Principal 124 

Farrar,    Dean 116,  232 

Faunce,    Dr 257 

Flammarion    195 

Foster    36 

Fowler,  C.  H 5 

Fremantle    152,  171,  232 

Galatians    73,143,264 

Gardner,    Percy 111,197 

Genesis     36,  249,  263 

Gideon     86 

Gladden,  W 126,  171,  232 

Gladstone     257,297,299 

Gnostics    29,  58 

God. 

Immanent    84 

Self-limitation    of 90 

In  human  thought 105 

See   Christ. 

Gordon,    G.    A 124,  154 

Gospels     109,151,194 

Syriac    194 

Graf    20,  50,  271 

Greek   Church 213 

Green,  W.  H 22,  88,  187,  244 

Guyot    249 


Hale,    E.    E 

Hammurabi,    Code    of. 


30 


53^  54.  255 


318 


General  Index 


Page. 

Harnack 116,  144,  187 

Harper 35,  197,  214,  215,  271 

Hastings,   James 172 

Haupt    22 

Hebrews,    Epistle    to... 144,  149 

Hegel    20,201 

Henderson,    C.    R 114 

Herbert,    Geo 276 

Herschel,   Sir  John 257 

Hervey,    Lord  A.   C 243 

Hexateuch   47 

Hilkiah   48 

Hilprecht 193,  229,  245 

Historicity       of      Scriptures 

impeached   108,  111 

Hoar,    Senator 175 

Hodge    95 

Hommel     22,192,229,245 

Hort     239 

Horton    152,  232 

Hosea    139 

Holtzman 143 

Hume    133,  135 

Hyde   214 

Immanence,  Divine 84 

Individualism    160 

Inspiration    69,  72,  75,  277 

Promised    76 

Result    of    peculiar    theo- 

Isaiah    60,  81,  139,  242, 

263,  265,  292 
"Second"    242 

James,    Wm 112,125 

Jefferson,    Thos 170,  171,  266 

Jeremiah    55,  75,  132,  252 

Jesus.      See  Christ. 

Job    35,  80,  141 

John    129,  142 

Jonah   .  .81,  86,  141,  198,  269,  293 

Joseph 86 

Joshua    80,  139 

Jude    144,  304 

Judges     . 140 

Jiilicher,     A 51 

Kant    42,  176 

Kelvin,    Lord 46 

Kenotism    88-96,  150,  268 

Kings    80,  140,  243 

Klostermann   187 

Konlg    186,  230 

Kueneu    ,.20,58,233,272 


Page. 

Lachmann  233 

Ladd    154 

Lamentations    141 

Legends    60,86,110,111,146 

Lex  Mosaica 244 

Liberty    215 

Lightfoot  240,  270 

Lipsius  112 

Logia   of   Matthew 142 

Luke    128,  142,  149 

Luther     23,  293,  316 

Lutherans    228 

Lyon,    D.    G 193 

Maccabees,   Second 252 

Macloskie    37 

Mallalieu,   W.   F 308 

Man.    Nature    of 45-47 

Margollouth,   D.  S.  .188,  229,  242 

Mark    142 

Matthew 142,  150 

McCabe 11 

Meinhold    188 

Merrill,    S.    M 306 

Methodists    89,  125 

Meyer,   E 264,  273 

Meyer,    F.    B 149 

Miracles   81,  83 

Mitchell,   H.    G 103,  218 

Mommsen     240 

Moses     ...53,80,86,192,249, 

251.  255.  261.  283 

Munhall.    L.   W 300 

Muller,    Max 234 

Muzzey,    D.    S.. . 134 

Myths      12,  34,  35,  36,  86, 

107,  109,  146,  191,  292 

Nehemiah    140,191 

New   Birth 29,  120 

Nicoll,   W.   R 186 

Northrop,   Cyrus 163 

Numbers,    Book    of 48,268 

Open  Court,  The 18 

Osgood,    H 221,227,229 

Paine.    L.    L Ill 

Paine,   Tom    .36,  59,  101,  103, 

155.  211.  263.  266,  291 
Palimpsest,   The  Sinaitic. 

194.  239 

Parker,    Joseph 82,136,231 

Patton,    F.    L 230,305 

9 


General  Index 


Page. 

Paul     66,  73,  75,  78,  149, 

152.  153.  162.  213 

Pearson,    C.   W 113 

Peake    232 

Peck,    H.    W 95 

Pentateuch  ..  .47,  79,  81,  138, 

192,  218,  244,  246,  251,  262 

Peter 75,  143,  144,  152 

Peters     .  .44,  58,  87,  110,  190,  191 

Philemon    143 

Philippians    143 

Philosophy    90 

Pinches 245 

Porphyry   59,  102,  201 

Porter    232 

Presbyterians    228,  313 

Probabilities,   Use   of 197 

Prophets;  Prophecy ..78,  84,  138 
Protestant  Episcopalians.  .  ..125 
Psalms    ....93,138,139,141,283 

Ramsay    143,  240 

Rawlinson    2  45 

Rationalism,  German. 5,  93,  139 
Records,    Adjusting  the.. 31,  38 

Babylonian    52 

Redactor    48,140 

Religious     Educational    As- 
sociation     215 

Renan     59,  123,  201,  211 

Resurrection    116,  117 

Residuum    171,  174,  etc. 

Revelation,  an  unveiling, 

fi9.  279 

And    inspiration    not    co- 
extensive        73 

Not  always  progressive.  .  .    74 

Revelation.    Book    of 143 

Rice,   W.   N 83,110,116,155 

Richell,   C.   W 103,  106,  309 

Romans,  Epistle  to 143,  264 

Roman  Catholics 68,  228 

Ruth    140,  198 

Sabatier,    A 112,126,152,171 

Samuel    35,  139,  140,  243 

Sanday    70 

Saphir,    A 72 

Sayce    38,  192,  202,  229,  245 

Scholars,    Evangelical 229 

Limited     258 

Modern   94 

Partisan   230 

Reverent 17 


Page. 

Scholarship,   The  NftW 207 

Often    supports   error 213 

Truer 225,  273 

Schleiermacher    61 

Schoolmen   29,  214 

Science    49,  63,  166,  182 

203.  218.  257 
Sheldon,  H.  C.  .81,  124,  141,  144 
Sigillaria   and    Stigmaria.  .  .  236 

Smith,    G.    A 36,  74,  191 

Smith,   Goldwin 119 

Smith,    John.  .  ..50,  203,  229,  244 

Socinians 102 

Song  of  Solomon 141 

Spinoza    59 

Spirit,    The    Holy 75,76,122 

Strauss    59,  116,  133,  135, 

201.  211 
Supernatural,    The.  .  .67,  96,  280 

Tabernacle,    The 85 

Terry,   M.   S 

32,  44.  89.  208.  268 

Theology,   The  New 120,  126 

Study  and  Schools  of....  155 

Changing    124 

Thessalonians   14^ 

Tischendorf 233 

Traditionalism    225,  238 

Tyndale   293 

Unitarians   88,  201 

University 214 

Vatke   20 

Van  Manen 264 

Vice,    Prevalence  of  r 160 

Voltaire 59,  101,  133, 

135.  209.  211 

Waddington,   M 240 

Warren.    H.   W 85 

Warren,   W.   F 219 

Washington  Monument 127 

W^atson,    John 124 

Wellhausen    20,  35,  267 

Wesley      23,  51,  231,  284 

Westcott    and    Hort 233 

Wilson,    Woodrow 168 

Wood,    J.    T 240 

Wright,    G.    F 48,230,249 

Wyclif    213 

Yellows,   The 50 

Zechariah    224 

Zenos.  A.  C 229 


320 


Date  Due 

%I 

sOC  1 8  4 

} 

t-AGULi) 

<  . 

■AM 

£^^ 

/ 

»■>' 

f 

BS500 .B96 

The  higher  critic's  Bible  or  God's 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00011   2492 


